Miocene humans

Yes actually. It was unequivocally a whale ancestor. Infact, other species that once lived side by side with pakicetus HAD webbed feet and WAS semi-aquatic. namely Rhodocetus.This is how science works, you take EVIDENCE, make preditions, if those predictions don't work you REVISE.You ever hear of phlogiston theory? It was an old theory that said things burned cuz they had stuff in it called "phlogiston". It was messurable, testable, and somewhat accurate. It was a prevailing theory of how things burn for quite a while until "caloric theory" put it to bed by bringing a more accurate idea about how things burn to the table. And guess what came after that (and because of both phlogiston and caloric) modern thermodynamics!So you see, science works by getting "right-er" and revising past mistakes. It dosn't throw out the baby with the bathwater simply cuz one thing may be wrong. That is a different topic, and if you open it I can demonstrate to you how a christian paradigm has done no such thing which you mention. No superstitious thinking has ever (well, maybe not ever ) led to any good in the world.I'm not going to take this debate down a path of Evolution deffence because it is off topic. As I recall you were still in the process of deffending your sources.How is Mr. Cremo not a quack?ABE: I think I meant Remingtonocetidae. They were likely contemporary with the last of the pakicetids, Rhodocetus came later. I may be wrong on this, but I know paki and Remington were within a few million years of each other.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 11:41 AM

Would love to! Where is it? What museum, who's the reasearcher, pictures, papers, etc.? Right, and as I pointed out, 100 years ago mermaids were being researched. Is there a knowldge filter on the findings related to mermaids?Romans were theorized as the builders of the Maya/Aztec ruins, is there a knowlledge filter for this?If humans lived in the Miocene you can bet Scientists would be all over it! It would be the find of a lifetime! Nobel prizes for everyone! Right, once trained, established scientists, evaluate the available evidence carefully, subject it to rigorous peer review, and lay out a justification for their theories, I go ahead and disregard it. If you have a funny mole, and your doc. tells you it's cancer, would you belive him? I hope you would. It does actually. If Cremo puts this forward, but cannot produce the balls, or any reasearch done upon the balls, he is a huckster. It smacks of charlatanry to me, but hey, show me the metal balls and I will be inclined to listen to the man. Cremo claimes not that humans were "devolving" or anything, he claims that there are actual CIVILIZATIONS that go back for more than 2 billion years!That's: 2,000,000,000,000BCThat's a freaking long time!That's big news. We should se evidence for it! I wanna see Dinotopia !This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 11:52 AM

Who, and what are their credentials?

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?They were PUT there, someone dug a hole and put them there. Further, bones are made of calcium much like limestone. As such, mineralization would happen much quicker.Those are just some ideas off the top of my head.Here is an excercise for you Randman, you found an interesting piece of evidence. My challenge for you is that YOU go find some contradictory evidence with which to weigh it against. That's how real scientists do it.ABE: Also, try and formulate alternate hypothesis as to how those bones got there. Formulate some tests to see if thos hypothesis hold up. If they do, then youre well on your way to winning the Nobel Prize!This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 01:52 PM

The site is referencing Cremo's work. It's currently in dispute in this thread. As such, this site is subject to all the same questions and scrutiny so far raised.See if you can find some documents with findings latter than ... I dunno... 1930.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 02:02 PM

And the excerpt you site says nothing to contradict that the burial may have been intrussive. Maybe you should investigate further? That's a good question, maybe you should investigate further? Do some reaserach on the find. Start by looking for the magazine and tracking down the people involved. See if any current work is being done on it.The rest is just a rant about the evil-evos. Exercise a little critical judgement yourself, see what you can dig up on these finds (pun intended).

Chiroptera,Here is the dudes bibliography for the page: See a pattern here? This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 02:09 PM

another important bit worth quoting:

Yes that's right. All modern scientists are just fools and you are one of the lucky enlightend few. That's called making a prediction from the evidence. At the time, it was the BEST GUESS of what the creature would look like. In this case it was slightly in error, it's not like they suddenly found out the creature was a turtle for goodness sakes. Im sorry you don't like the fact that Pakicetus is put in the Order Cetacea. Just like dogs are in the same order as seals. Sorry that Paki dosn't look like what you think a whale ancestor should look like.

Can you give me any scientific reason he isn't a whale?

Randman, disregard my last post. Please adress the other points in this thread. Pakicetus belongs in the other thread on whale evolution.Sorry for the OT tack. But we really must get some more sources other than the discredited Cremo.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 07:00 PM

Are we done with this thread?

Since we brought this up recently, I just figured I'd bump it up. Anyone out there wanna take a shot?