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

Re his claim that the Mbuti pygmies are similar to habilis, Willowtree says: "My source for the evidence which you like to ignore is atheist and Mensa member Richard Milton."Milton makes this claim in later editions of his book "Shattering the Myths of Evolution". However there's no evidence to ignore: Milton gives none, and supplies no references. However, Willowtree may have picked up the claim from my online debate with Milton. Milton also refused to supply a reference there, though he was asked for one many times. The claim is false; pygmies and Homo habilis differ in many respects including brain size. Milton either made the claim up (quite likely) or copied it from another source I'm unfamiliar with.Jim

Why would anyone wanting to make such a dramatic scientific claim reference an obscure creationist book by someone with no expertise in the field? Fortunately, I do have a copy of White's book (Wonderfully Made), and can tell you that he supplies zip, nada, zilch, zero evidence in favor of his claim. Milton wasn't summarizing White's argument. That was White's argument, in toto. NosyNed hit the nail on the head when he asked for the details of the calculations. There aren't any; it's worthless handwaving.In contrast, when real scientists actually do the work with real numbers, they find that in relative brain size, Homo habilis and Homo erectus are intermediate between apes and humans. (e.g. an essay in the book The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton by Walker and Leakey, and a 1987 paper by Tobias in the Journal of Human Evolution, both of which I referenced in post 5c1 of the debate to which Milton never responded). The considerable anatomical differences between habilis and modern humans, as pointed out in post 3 of my debate with Milton (about halfway down the page). If you wish to argue that Mbuti are similar to habilis and equally different from typical modern humans, it would be incumbent upon you to actually provide evidence for such a dramatic claim. Milton never did so, despite repeated requests for his evidence.(Actually, the criticism didn't really need rebutting, because Milton provided no evidence for it - just like White's claim; what a coincidence, eh?) It's a bit of a mystery. He's said he's not a creationist, though I'm not aware he's ever said that he's an atheist (can't find my copy of his book right this minute). He appears to be grinding an anti-modern-science axe, maybe because modern science rejects a lot of stuff he appears to be interested in.Jim

I think it was a fair point to make that such an obscure source is not the most best source for documenting such an extraordinary claim. If I'd stopped there, yes, it would have been an ad hominem argument. But it was really just meant to be a side observation, before I got down to analyzing Milton's argument in detail.Since you didn't dispute any of my other evidence, does that mean you accept that Milton's claim is unfounded?

We've already addressed this in message 229, remember?White provided no data in support of his claim. Scientists who do analyze the data find out that habilis had smaller brains than humans of equivalent size would have.Yes, pygmies are about the same stature as Homo habilis, but they have much larger brains.White's argument would have had equal validity [i.e. none] had he pointed out that monkeys have smaller brains than humans, but also have smaller body size which compensates for it, so they really have just as large brains as humans relatively speaking. Handwaving is worthless; you've to analyze the data. Guess what? All of this is irrelevant. Yes, the original habilis fossils were scrappy, but they're not what people think of when they talk about habilis now. They've found quite a few more habilis fossils since then including some skulls, but apparently Milton doesn't want you to know about that. Milton is so hilariously clueless that he didn't even know how one of the most famous fossils of all time is classified nowadays. Java man isn't a fraud; it's a member of Homo erectus, for reasons which are common knowledge but apparently not to Milton. This was thrashed over in great detail in our debate.Jim