12,000-Year-Old Bones Found in Kansas

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 16 February 2005 6:40 am

"Conventional wisdom has been that people came across the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago. But Mandel said the northwest Kansas dig means "we're rethinking not only when people arrived, but where they came from."

Considering that they have to change some aspect of their theory every couple years, maybe they should start to rethink their methodology A simple admission that that they're working with theories and hypotheses instead of blindly proclaiming that things like evolution are fact and unquestionably supported by all the scientific evidence would be a start.

Schultz · Post by **Schultz** » Mon 28 February 2005 11:54 am

This "rethinking" of the theory of when North America became populated isn't new at all. Digs at Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania and Monte Verde in South America have called into question of the so-called "Clovis Barrier" for decades now. It's nice to see that there's more evidence pointing to human habitation of the Americas for longer than 11,500 years.

These digs have nothing to do with the various theories of evolution, either. Archaeology is the study of the material culture left behind by what physical anthropologists would call "modern humans".

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Sat 5 March 2005 8:56 am

There's nothing wrong with the methodology. The Scientific Method is about having a hypothesis that is tested and and studied. If new verifiable data comes along the response isn't "Oh no, that can't be right. I like my old idea, so that's what's true." But "Ah. new information. So that part of the theory doesn't work now. This new data changes things and we can form new hypotheses and test it." Btw, new data is tested to be verified. Sometimes there can be mistakes or mis-measures or mis-interpretations, so something new isn't automatically accepted either.

"Theory" isn't the same as "Unchangable, set in granite forever". It's working with the information that is available. When new information comes to light, the theory changes, but it doesn't make the old ideas a lie. They were what could be done with what was there.

I've never read a real scientist of any stripe who wouldn't say that they are working with hypotheses and theories. Admitting that new information does change things is honest. What scientists have you read, Justin who "blindly" hold to things?

As Schultz wrote, this has nothing to do with evolution.

Ebor