Miocene humans

The word extraordinary is applied to a claim that contradicts a large body of quality evidence.

Packicetus was belived to have webfeet in 1998.

In 1812, several skeletons were found on the island of Guadeloupe. They were all pointing the same way, were not disjointed, were only partly mineralized, and a dog and implements were found with them. This implies a burial, rather than a mass death. The dog and the partial mineralization imply they are post-Columbian.One of the skeletons, of a woman, was presented to the British Museum. It has been on and off public display ever since.In 1983, the Australian creationist journal Ex Nihilo ran an article by W. R. Cooper. He claimed that the skeleton was found in a 25 million year old Lower Miocene deposit. He said that it showed signs of drowning in the Flood. He also claimed that it was taken off display, in Darwin's day, to conceal the evidence against Darwin's theory. The Natural History Museum curators say that they didn't move it down to the basement until 1967.And there the matter sits. Cooper has not produced an independant opinion that his dating (to the Miocene) is correct. The skeleton has not been carbon-dated, although the Museum offered to do so for a fee.

Ragazzoni, a teacher from the Technical Institute of Brescia, found what appeared to be human remains amongst fossil shells near the area of Castenedolo in Italy during the late 1800’s. He took the remains to two geologists and inquired on whether the physical characteristics of the bones would warrant them being contemporary with the fossil shell layer (in other words, if they were buried at the same time as the layer in which the shells came from). They immediately poo-pooed the idea. The layer for which the shells are found were assigned the Astian age in the fossil layer (for the record, I do not subscribe to the geologic time scale and the assumptions which deduce such numbers).Ragazonni threw the bones away, taking the word of the geologists that the bones were of no importance. Still, it intrigued him that there could possibly be human remains within strata thought to be so old (given an age of 1.5-4 million years old). He suggested to a friend of his that the land around Castenedolo was a good buy, and that the land itself had a plentiful resource of rich fertilizer among the soils. He informed the friend that while digging for fertilizer, he should keep a careful eye out for any human remains that might be buried there. He told him to inform him the moment they found anything out of the ordinary.Sure enough, more bones were found in the basic vicinity of where Ragazzoni found the initial human remains. Ragazzoni, a trained geologist of his day, excavated (with the help of others) a total of four individuals over a localized expanse of the hillside. He confirmed that, undeniably, these perfectly modern human skeletons were found among the Astian clay, intermixed with fossil shells.He then brought a trained anatomist, Professor G. Sergi from the University of Rome, into the investigation. Sergi had concluded that the remains consisted of four individuals; a woman, a man, and two children.Both Ragazzoni and Sergi had lingering doubts as to the nature of the material within the Astian layer. They suspected, like the previous two geologists, that these human remains might have been buried in the Astian layer well after it had been laid down (this is what is known as an intrusive burial). IF this had been the case, the stratigraphy of the Astian soil, as well as the several layers of soil above it (all colored differently from the Astian) would have been disturbed, intermixed, with definite borders to the grave walls and the like.
However, Ragazzoni concluded that these skeletons were not an intrusive burial. They were buried at the same time that the Astian layer was layed down (1.5-4 million years according to the evolutionary timescale). Sergi agreed with this statement, and both he and Ragazzoni never recanted their initial findings to my knowledge.According to Ragazzoni (1880, p.123); The stratum of blue clay (Astian layer), which is over 1 meter (3 feet) thick, has preserved its uniform stratification, and does not show any sign of disturbance. In accordance with the judgment of the excavator himself, who is not preoccupied with any preconceived ideas, the skeleton was very likely deposited in a kind of marine mud and not buried at a later time, for in this case one would have been able to detect traces of the overlying yellow sand and the iron-red clay called feretto, which forms the top part of the hill, and which by successive floodings has washed down and covered the lower formations of conglomerate and sand that cover the shelly Subappenine blue clays.

So... some people DIG and burry some other people in a 25 million year old limestone deposit, and this somehow means those people are 25 million years old?