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

Robert, pay attention! We're going to go through this step by step.Point 1: The Coelacanth order was alive when the fossils were created, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 2: The Coelacanth order is alive today, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 3: Therefore the Coelacanth order must have been alive all during the period from fossil creation until today, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 4: In order for the Coelacanth order to survive during the period between fossil creation and today, it must have had survivable habitats all during that period, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 5: A survivable habitat for the Coelacanth order is deep, cold ocean off continental shelves, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 6: Therefore deep, cold ocean off continental shelves must have been available between fossil creation and today, right? Please answer yes or no.--Percy

In agreeing with points 1 through 6 you contradict yourself in Message 187: Let me state this clearly. Points 1 through 6 show that a viable environment for the Coelacanth order *must* have been available during the entire period from fossil creation until today. But your Message 187 expresses extreme skepticism that this could be so.Let's play a game similar to H-O-R-S-E, except it's called R-E-M-E-D-I-A-L. You've got an R.--Percy

We don't do "debate by reference" here. We'll give you an "R", too.--Percy

Hmmm. Rebutted before, plus it's self-evidently ridiculous. Now you have R-E.--Percy

You weren't entitled to an argument based on evidence because you didn't enter any evidence into the argument, just a name. Now you have R-E-M.--Percy

Let's look again at what you just agreed to: You can't both agree and disagree with this statement. You have to either pick one, or you have to introduce other factors. By doing neither you are putting forward a logically inconsistent position. In case this isn't clear, let my clarify by stating that a logically inconsistent position is wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Erroneous. There is plenty of geological and physical evidence. We're more than happy to discuss this evidence if that's what you'd like. Remember that you agreed with all my points one through six, and that you therefore agreed that the Coelacanth order existed continuously from fossil creation until today. If you don't accept the timescale, then you must address the evidence supporting the timescale. Your position of personal skepticism is worthless. You have to address the evidence.You might want to review the Forum Guidelines. Evidence is an important part of all discussion here. A debate is not where you give your opinion, then I give my opinion, then you give your opinion again, then I give my opinion again, and so on and on and on. That's not what we do here. The new [forum=-28] forum is to help members learn to follow the forum guidelines and to support their opinions with evidence.--Percy

Hi Robert,I'm going reply to comments from a few of your posts, blending them together as necessity and logic direct. No, Percy didn't. Read my six points from Message 189 again. To make it easy, I repeat them here: Nowhere do I mention timescale. You agreed with all the six points. You were the first to mention timescale in reply to these points in Message 203: To which I replied, "There is plenty of geological and physical evidence. We're more than happy to discuss this evidence if that's what you'd like."So, is that what you'd like? Would you like to discuss the dating evidence? I'm not going to invest time starting down this path unless you say this is what you'd like to do, because you kind of indicate you're really not interested when you say in Message 220, "Dating ideas isn't in my orbit anyway."So when you go on to say, "I see nothing wrong in my debate with Percy," this could only be true if you're willing to explore the implications of your position, which means exploring dating issues. But if you're determined to repeatedly state that ancient dating is impossible while declining to examine the evidence for ancient dating, then everything is wrong with your "debate with Percy" and you deserve [forum=-28].--Percy

Hi WillowTree,While legitimate questions can be raised about fossils classified as Homo habilis, the doubts you're raising seem without support. You claim that there are extremely few habilis fossils, and that those that have been found have been misclassified.Addressing just the first of your points, that there are extremely few habilis fossils, here is a list of significant habilis fossils from This Page at Talk.Origins. Legitimate questions can be raised about many of these, and we can get into that if you like, but this list is just to rebut your point about the paucity of habilis fossil evidence:

• OH 7: child, lower jaw, cranial fragments, some hand bones
• OH 8: foot bones
• OH 13: lower jaw, teeth, some upper jaw, cranial fragment
• OH 16: teeth, a few skull fragments
• OH 24: fairly complete but crushed cranium and 7 teeth
• KNM-ER 1470: nearly complete skull.
• KNM-ER 1481: complete left femor, ends of left tibia, lower end of left fibula
• KNM-ER 1805: much of cranium, many teeth
• KNM-ER 1813: nearly complete skull
• Stw 53: nearly complete skull, many teeth
• OH 62: portions of skull, arm, leg bones and teeth
• OH 65: complete upper jar, part of lower face

Now let's examine the Milton quote you provided: Unless Milton is actually just referring to the initial speculation about a possible new homonid species after the first habilis find, he's wrong.As can be seen by the list I just provided, Homo habilis is supported by far more evidence than Milton is telling you. As I said above, the evidence can be legitimately questioned, but that's not what Milton is doing. He's ignoring the evidence, not rebutting it.--Percy

This has already drawn some responses, but I'd like to add my two cents anyway.A theory is not developed and accepted in a vacuum. Theories are not ideas expounded from armchairs and accepted without question. Theories are frameworks of understanding developed around bodies of data, observations and information after intense study, reflection and dialogue. Theories explain and make sense of the data and make predictions about the natural world, and the data in turn supports the theory. Theories inconsistent with the data they purport to explain don't last long.Theories are also tentative, which means they can change in response to new information or improved insights, which is what I think you're referring to when you say, "allegedly and theoretically." But a challenge to a theory isn't mounted simply by noting its tentative nature.All theories are tentative, including gravity. If I said that the equation for gravitational attraction is F = Gm₁m₂/d², you can't legimately challenge this by saying, "allegedly and theoretically." The equation is supported by a huge amount of data, so challenging the theory must involve challenging the data, or its interpretation.Or taking a similar example closer to your recent experience, if you were to tell me that a bullet fired from your rifle at sea level at one atmospheric pressure at 10% humidity drops 3 cm/km (or whatever the figure is), I couldn't legitimately respond, "allegedly and theoretically," because I'm sure the information is supported by a large body of data.What people are telling you is that a response to an explanation of a theory cannot simply say, "allegedly and theoretically." That's not a legitimate response. Theories are supported by data, and allegations that a theory is false must challege the data or its interpretation.JonF was explaining to you that evolutionary change is rarely accomplished by masking when you replied "allegedly and theoretically." You might instead consider asking him some questions about this to see how well he can support it. I know I would, because I think at least some additional clarification is required. One significant counter-example to the claim is neoteny, and I'm frequently reading about genetic mechanisms that work by preventing a protein from being produced.--Percy