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

No, the coelocanth was not any sort of embarassment for evolution.The coelocanth is a member of a group (the lobe finned fishes) from which land animals are descended. Anyone with any understanding of evolutionary theory would know that that does not in any way imply that the group overall should be extinct or have left the sea. This is juat a variant of the silly argument "if humans came form apes, why are there still apes ?" argument and is just as nonesensical.There was no expectation that the coelocanth would "walk" (it still has the fins from which legs evolved). And the coelocanth was found in deep sea regions so there is abolutely no reason to expect that it would find any advantage in adaptions to enable it to move on land!Nor is there any embarassment to evolutionary theory in the fact that the coelocanth is "still a fish" (and contrary to common creationist belief the modern coelocanth is quite distinct from ancient forms).So there is no "loss" here for our sid e- but in using sch a hopelessly wrong argument you have scored an own goal. I hope you will have no trouble admitting that.

No, I'm not wrong. You must be confusing the coelocanth with some other lobe-finned fish (Eusthenopteron, perhaps). The coelocanth is typically only mentioned because it is a SURVIVING lobe-finned fish.Moreover in recent years further discovery and analysis of early tetrapods has indicated that legs evolved in water, not for moving on land as was once thought.

I hope it's your own posts you are describing as "political spin"You have yet to offer any valid reason why the discovery of the coelacanth should have lead to any questioning of the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

Page 206 of his book, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism":

​

Homo habilis is the first time a new human species was claimed as such based entirely on a lower jaw with teeth, collarbone, a finger bone, and some small skull fragments. END MILTON CITE.

​

IOW, a few scraps = the basis to prop up the "preexisting narrative structure" of hominid evolution.

​

Milton says one of the hand bones is a piece of vertebra, and two other bones could belong to a tree dwelling monkey, and six others came from some unspecified nonhominid.

​

And all of Milton's material on homo habilis is in the context of the convicts which found Eugene Dubois Java man - a known jigsaw puzzle of a fraud. (skullcap, femur, and two teeth = Java man)

​

Milton's re-occurring point: So much (human evolution) based on so little (disputed scraps).

---

Firstly Dubois' Java Man is not a fraud - and not Homo habilis either. It is the later Homo erectus. And for Homo erectus we have plenty more finds - such as the Peking Man specimens and the Turkana Boy.And there are more finds attributed to Homo Habilis than those Milton mentions (although those are quite adequate - for instance enough of the skull survived for an estimate of brain capacity to be made). OH8 - the second major find - is a near-complete set of footbones. Later finds include near-complete crania the first of those being OH24.

There are two possible reasons for hitting a "barrier". Some barriers may be fundamental - there's no requirement in evolution that we ought to be able to produce any change we can imagine.But in the case of selective breeding another reason is probably more important. There are limits to the amount of variation actually within the gene pool of a species. While the amount of variation available is greater than we might think, if we did not have the examples from domestication it is still a limit. And while mutations add to that variation the appearance of useful variations is relatively infrequent, and so it is quite easy to hit a temporary barrier until a variation that allows further progress appears (and that may take hundreds or thousands of years).

As others have said some changes will be irreversible in practical terms.Evolution generally occurs by genetic changes becoming "fixed" in a population - that is the "new" version of the gene (or versions with further mutations) is in every individual. Which means that all the older versions are lost unless another mutation undoes the first. Statistically that is unlikely in most cases. "Throwbacks" would either be the result of those rare cases when the mutation is (relatively) likely to reverse or possibly a product of a recessive gene which has not entirely been lost.