We Were Never Alone!!
Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 9th, 2012
We were never alone as the only hominoid on Earth. Why should we think that we should be now. Sasquatch, Yetis, Yerens, Orang Pendeks, and humans. There is room enough for all.
See the breaking news: Many human ‘prototypes’ coexisted in Africa, Homo habilis, H. erectus, and H. rudolfensis crowded the landscape in Africa. There are probably undiscovered “unknown hominoids” still living there today.
This post was written by
Loren Coleman no longer writes for Cryptomundo. His archived posts remain here at Cryptomundo.
So, what this proves is that biologists, even slow adopters, have no objection to adding branches to the human tree, provided there is sufficiently compelling evidence. It also shows that one item of even very good and concrete evidence (the 1972 Homo rudolfensis skull) may not meet that standard.
If anything I think this shows us that “science” needs to get back to the “search for truth” rather than being the “source for accepted dogma” which increasingly the non “pure” sciences (those unable to demonstrate quantifiable, empirical results through observation) have become.
Not holding my breath though…
Just to be clear: Which is the example of science not “searching for truth” but “source for accepted dogma?” After all, it seems that the “dogma” accepted by most readers of this web site is different than any “dogma” accepted by the people who have actually spent their lives studying biology.
You know, you can’t have it both ways. If you think scientists deliberately turned a blind eye on evidence that *should* have made them all accept Homo rudolfensis as a distinct species, you might just as well accept that scientists have fabricated the Homo rudolfensis in the first place. It’s not like you would know the difference. If scientists are a bunch of lying bastards, their lying bastards when they tell you what you want to hear just as much as when they tell you what you don’t.
But in this story, and in countless others, you see scientists who have rendered their professional opinion, been confronted with strong evidence to the contrary, and actually changed their opinions. They do this all the time. Maybe 97% of biologists today think that there never has been a Bigfoot-like animal on the North American continent, but if you could furnish sufficient evidence to the contrary, the whole history of the discipline shows that they would change their opinions. Now consider: Do cryptozoologists have a similar willingness to admit they were wrong? If another 50 years of wildlife surveys goes by without collecting any definitive evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, would a suspicious absence of evidence become at least somewhat suggestive as evidence of absence?
If you’ve just thought, “But … but … Bigfoot *IS* real!” then it’s not mainstream science that has issues with an unchallengeable dogma.
Ugh. I see I wrote “their” instead of “they’re”. I need to do a better job proof-reading.