Foley/Milton debate, message 4 summary

See also:
From: (Richard Milton)
Return-Path: <>
Reply-To: Richard Milton <>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:59:35
Subject: Milton's response to Foley (Summary)

Jim Foley has posted to the list both a long response to my last email and 
a more recent short or summary response.  I have replied in detail to his 
long email under the title "Milton's response to Foley (long)" 
in a separate email message.  In this message I am responding to his 
summary with a brief response of my own. 

>Four weeks ago, I sent a response to the list and to Richard Milton,
>responding to Milton's claims that he had made here.  In it and a previous
>message, I disputed, with references, Richard's claims:
>    that all competent authorities consider Java Man a gibbon (none do,
>    that I know of)

See my long response for quotes identifying "Java man" as a gibbon, from 
Rupert Virchow, Director of the Berlin Society for Anthropology and founder 
of the modern science of pathology, Marcellin Boule, Director of the Human 
Institute of Paleontology in Paris, and Eugene Dubois, discoverer of "Java 

>    that there is nothing to distinguish Homo habilis skulls from those of
>    modern humans (I gave 5 quotes contradicting this)

Jim's supporting quotes are from the same scientists who failed to 
recognise that there are modern humans (eg the Mbuti) who have similar 
stature and cranial capacity as H. habilis.  Modern pygmies also have other 
"primitive" or "ape-like" characteristics, such as prognathous teeth and 
upper jaws, and arms longer than their legs, which Jim and his authorities 
must have also somehow failed to notice because these are the very 
characteristics that they claim to be "ape-like", when they are in fact 
possessed by modern humans. My long response gives references. 

>    that the brain size of Homo habilis is comparable to that of some 
>    human groups (it is far lower)

I give figures that show that Jim is mistaken and that the cranial capacity 
of some modern humans is in the same range as H. habilis.  

>    that australopithecines have no human characteristics, and that they
>    are "known" to be "extinct apes unrelated to humans"

I previously quoted the studies of two distinguished anatomists whose 
conclusion this is.  I now support this further with references making 
extensive comparison of both cranial and post-cranial anatomy of Lucy and 
her relatives. 

>    that "every single claimed "missing link" fossil has been re-assigned
>    either as an extinct ape or as a human essentially the same as modern
>    humans."

This is perfectly correct.  There are no exceptions of which I am aware.  
When invited to produce an exception, Jim has failed to do so, merely 
quoting long-discredited and dog-eared press handouts from National 
Geographic for 'missing links', such as 'Lucy'.

>I also questioned his claims that Java Man had been removed from the
>American Museum of Natural History in 1984, and that the scientists who
>wrote the "type descriptions" of all the hominid species considered
>considered them either apes or fully human.  I cannot disprove these
>statements without knowing more about what Richard is talking about, but
>they are totally contrary to everything I have read about human evolution.

It is time for Jim to start questioning some of the things that he has read 
about human evolution and accepted so unquestioningly.

>I think Richard should retract all of the above claims unless he is able 
>to come up with some evidence for them.

For the evidence, see my long post.


Richard Milton
Tel: +44 1732 353 427     Fax: +44 1732 353 427