Miocene humans

This is the Internet, where anyone can say anything they like. The only interesting question suggested by your OP concerns what criteria you are applying when you judge a source credible. What would you think of an atheist who posted this in one of the religious forums: Would you think the person posting this perhaps lacks critical judgment?--Percy

I still think my earlier question is the one most relevant to this thread. Your material appeared to fit right in with the rest of the material at those websites. By what criteria do you judge it credible? For you, what differentiates it from the rest of the dross it's always associated with?--Percy

You're talking about Cremo? He hasn't been well received by the scientific community, and he hasn't been invited to speak at scientific conferences. I don't know much about the World Archeological Congress, but if you're letting the fact that he presented a paper there lead you to believe that his views are finding acceptance in some corners of the scientific establishment then you are sorely mistaken. The only attention he receives from the scientific community is when they express extreme skepticism. It isn't just biology that rejects his ideas, but virtually every field of science. And this was why I was asking how you judge something credible. In order for Cremo to be right, most of what we currently know in science has to be wrong. Cremo and others like him primarily promote their ideas to those with little scientific background by writing books in the popular press. Selling books and lectures to the scientifically illiterate has always been profitable.The ideas presented alongside Cremo's at various websites all seem fairly unlikely. One important quality good scientists posess in common is having a good sense for the most fertile areas to invest their time. Cremo has found company among the crackpots because no scientists judge his ideas worthy of attention. They're aware of the existing evidence for currently accepted views, and it is obvious on its face how poorly Cremo's evidence is by comparison in both quality and quantity. They judge a further examination of Cremo's claims unworthy of their time.If one were characterizing Cremo's ideas in measured scientific terms then one might say that they are inconsistent with the larger body of evidence, and that he must improve this situation before his ideas will find a scientific audience. But the fact of the matter is that Cremo is a crackpot, in the same way that perpetual motion machine inventors and mind readers are crackpots. It would not be a worthwhile investment of time to give his ideas any serious consideration.--Percy

I hope you're not concluding that this paragraph says that Cremo and Thompson's evidence is valid. The word extraordinary is applied to a claim that contradicts a large body of quality evidence. This evidence can only be overcome by an equally large (or larger) body of quality evidence, which would indeed be extraordinary. Hence the common catchphrase, as it has become, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's just a shorthand way of saying that a lot of evidence can only be overcome by a lot of other evidence.This is why I keep asking about the criteria you apply when judging a claim credible. It seems as if you assign a lot of weight to small amounts of evidence when the claim is novel or intriguing, and very little weight to the body of evidence stacked against it. It is the nature of the claim that seems to capture your interest, and not the quality or quantity of the evidence. The claims of Cremo and Thompson have no more substance than those of Erich von Dniken, Ron Wyatt or Carl Baugh, charlatans who also have a large following among the hoi polloi. If you think these ancient sites exist, I suggest you try to visit them. Since the writer is as critical and scathing as one could possibly be of Cremo and Thompson without coming right out and calling them cranks, I'm astounded at your ability to find support, even of a backhanded nature, where absolutely none exists. The mind boggles.What you want to do is consider Cremo and Thompson's claims on the merits, on the evidence.--Percy

It makes no sense that you chose to reply to this relatively inconsequential comment that appeared among several more substantial and relevant points. I don't think you've thought through the consequences of a Vedic interpretation of the history of the universe upon the various sciences, primarily physics, cosmology, geology, paleontology, archeology and biology, but to get into a discussion of this would draw us off topic.The actual points I was making in Message 31 were:

• Your mistaken notion that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community, which isn't true.
  ​
• The poor quality and paucity of Cremo's evidence.
  ​
• Your approach to judging something credible.

--Percy

Hi Randman,Obviously the scientific community does not find Cremo's evidence credible. He can take this to heart and find better evidence, or he can continue selling his books to the gullible. I don't think repeatedly pleading that we should deem Cremo's evidence credible is going to have much success.In my opinion, the more relevant issues regarding claims like humans living 2 billion years ago are not Cremo's specific points, but these:

• Your mistaken notion that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community, which isn't true.
  ​
• The poor quality and paucity of Cremo's evidence.
  ​
• Your approach to judging something credible.

--Percy

Gee, I don't know, so many topics to investigate, so little time. There's homeopathy, therapeutic touch, pyramid power, astrology, telekenesis, ESP, the effects of prayer, spoon bending, out-of-body experiences, poltergeist, astral projection, auras, mind-reading, clairvoyance, Noah's flood, hydroplate theory, vapor canopy theory, white holes, accelerated decay, rapid plate tectonics, rapid recolonization, and on and on. Now you're adding humans living back in the Miocene. I don't know about anyone else, but before I invest any time in it I'd need to know not only what sets the evidence for this a notch above the evidence for all these other things, but in what way it approaches the standard for scientific evidence.I still think these are the important points:

• You are mistaken that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community.
  ​
• Cremo's evidence is slight and of very low quality.
  ​
• Your attraction to wacko fringe theories calls your approach to judging something credible into question.

This thread has quickly reached a loop. You haven't gotten anyone interested in examining the "evidence", and you're taking every refusal as an opportunity to cast a variety of off-topic general accusations at evolutionists.You're going to have to face facts. The scientific community rejects Cremo, his ideas sound just as crackpot as lots of other crackpot ideas at various websites, which is where Cremo's ideas tend to get represented, and so far no one here finds his ideas credible, either. Maybe you'll get someone to nibble, but until then your time might be better spent finding some credible evidence.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-08-2005 01:04 PM

No, you have it wrong. I'm not refusing to examine a "wide body of evidence". You don't have a "wide body of evidence", you just keep claiming you do. Your reliance on extremely old scholarship, your error in claiming that Cremo was gaining some attention from the scientific community, your inability to recognize the contradictions a Vedic interpretation has with many fields of science, these all combine to call into question your ability to make sound judgments regarding evidence.If you'd prefer to continue to use this thread as an extended rant against evolution and evolutionists then I guess just go ahead, but insult doesn't have a very successful history as a tool of persuasion. Your time might be better spent forthrightly addressing some of the questions that have been raised, such as making a well-argued case for accepting the antiquated scholarship you're citing, and going beyond simple dismissal of the scientific conundrums that a Vedic approach introduces.--Percy

In the hopes that it will help, let me explain why this seems incredibly poor evidence.One important principle of archeology is that artifacts removed from their original site lose a great deal of their ability to tell us anything. This principle did not exist in the early 1800's, and so I assume the skeletons were removed and none remain as originally found. If this is not true, if some of the skeletons were left in place, then it only remains to conduct an archeological investigation on the site. Does anything remain at the site, and is Cremo investigating.If nothing remains at the site, indeed, if the site cannot even be identified today, then there is probably nothing that can be done. The skeleton in the British museum is useless as evidence.The article says implements were found with them. One of the first questions you want to ask concerns the nature of these implements., i.e., were they axes, rakes, hoes? Were they metal or stone? Was there any wood attached to the implements? What period of human history do the implements appear to come from.There was a dog at the site. Was the breed of the dog identifiable? If so, what breed was it, and when did the breed first appear? Or is it a completely unknown breed?Since the excavation was in 1812, what evidence did W. R. Cooper use in 1983, more than 150 years later, to decide that the skeleton at the British museum had come from Miocene layers. He claims the skeleton show signs of drowning, but what signs can a skeleton have of drowning?Why hasn't Cooper payed to have the skeleton carbon dated. All he needs is to find that the date is indeterminable (meaning the skeleton would have to be at least 50,000 years old) to have some really serious data. So why hasn't he done this? Carbon dating only costs a few hundred dollars.The article says the skeletons appeared to have been subjected to a burial. Is it safe to presume the skeletons were found buried only a few feet down? I don't know, the article doesn't say. After all, they might have been digging a well. But since the area dug up was broad enough to include several human skeletons and a dog skeleton as well as some implements, it might be safe to assume they weren't conducting this excavation at any significant depth, and that they were found relatively near the surface. So one logical question to ask is, "What is the geology of Guadeloupe like? Are layers from the Miocene present near the surface?" The answer appears to be yes, but it is the upper Miocene, not the lower. But any graves would likely be dug into Miocene layers.Lastly, what do archeologists say about Guadeloupe. Information on the Internet is sparse, but one site (Global Industry Market Sizing - NationMaster) says it was first inhabited by humans around 300 BC. Archeologists have found no sign of earlier habitation.Now let's examine your own analysis. Limestone is a likely possibility, but nothing in the article says limestone. You shouldn't be drawing conclusions out of thin air. If you have a reason for suspecting limestone, say what it is.But of greater concern is your conclusion that burial in Miocene limestone layers "seems to be the case." All you've got is an anecdotal story. As far as you can tell from the article, no one has examined the site since 1812. Concluding from this sparse and unverified information that it "is problematic for current human origins scenarios" calls your judgement into question. You can't take Cooper's statements at face value to reach any conclusions. And you're ignoring the possibility that burial below a few feet on Guadaloupe might place you in Miocene layers. Again, you've got almost nothing to go on. You're leaping to conclusions.You need to raise the standard of the evidence you consider. You must become much more circumspect, else you will be cast about from fad theory to fad theory.--Percy

Just some additional information for Randman...Unless I'm thinking of the wrong magazine, New Scientist is only a weekly popular science magazine summarizing recent scientific findings or discoveries. It's merely filling a reporting role. There's only editors and reporters, not peer review. If New Scientist makes a mistake in its reporting it only reflects on them, not on the scientific field they misreported.That being said, I find it a pretty good magazine, very informative.--Percy