Miocene Man


Source: Pamphlet No. 234 May 1995 – by Dr Bill Cooper


Human remains from the Lower Miocene

It is everywhere taught, and held to be a scientific fact, that man evolved from apes during the last million yeas or so. Various charts and diagrams are devised that purport to demonstrate the stages of such evolution. What is omitted, however, is a vast body of evidence from the fossil record which shows that fully human fossils are found in much lower geological levels which are interpreted as millions of years earlier than man’s proposed ancestors. Either the time-scale of the geological column is quite wrong, or fossil man often pre-dates his proposed ancestors.

One example of this is a human skeleton at present lying in the basement of the British Museum of Natural History. This fossil was dug out of the Lower Miocene deposits of Grande Terre, part of the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe. It still lies firmly embedded in a two ton block of limestone which is harder than statuary marble. It had embedded the bones while the limestone was still fluid. The burial was sudden and catastrophic, as evidenced by the articulation of the bones and the high organic content of the rock immediately around them.

The body had not yet decayed when burial occurred. The bones are therefore of the same age as the rock. Miocene sediments are reckoned to date from 12 to 25 million yeas ago, so this Lower Miocene human should predate all its ancestors!

Skeleton in the cupboard

One curious aspect of this evidence is that the British museum have been in possession of this specimen since the Admiralty presented it to them in 1812. During the early 19th century it was displayed to the public as a curiosity. However, once Darwinism gained a foothold the specimen was removed from public display. I am given to understand, in fact, that I was the first member of the public to set eyes on it since the early 1930’s. The last geological survey of the island that mentions the presence of human remains in these deposits is that of Spencer in 1901.

An unspecified number of human remains were found fossilised within these Guadeloupe deposits, although this appears to be the only surviving specimen. Nor are these the sole examples of human fossils found too early to have evolved from apes. Others include early Pliocene remains, reckoned by geologists to be up to 12 million years old, such as those found at Galley Hill, Ipswich and Swanscombe in England, Castenedolo and Olmo in ltaly, Abbeville, Fontechevade and Clichy in France, Kanjera in S. Africa, Keilor in Australia and Natchez in the USA.

Predictions of creation model

Not only does the geological age of this Miocene fossil not fit the evolutionary model, but it does agree with expectations of a creationist model. Although found at such a low stratum, it is a fully human female. There is nothing ape-like in its appearance.

Moreover, there is evidence of sudden burial which implies rapid laying down of sediments, in contradistinction to the gradualistic interpretations of uniformitarian geologists. We have noted that the skeleton remained articulate and with surrounding organic matter and the rock was soft at burial.

Evidence of catastrophic burial is also seen in the extensive impact damage to the skeleton which occurred prior to the body’s decomposition. For example, the right side of the rib-cage now lies above the left humerus (upper arm bone), and the sternum (breast bone) lies within the rock underneath these ribs. Likewise the spinal column was dislocated from the pelvis on impact, the sacrum (back of the pelvis) now descending into the rock at an angle of 45 deg. In this area, too, the left illium (hip bone) has been wrenched away from the pelvis, lying flat within the rock instead of projecting upwards. The left tibia (shin bone) was dislocated at the knee, the bone having been rotated some 90 deg to the right. There is also a post-mortem fracture to be seen in the left radius (a fore-arm bone). This impact damage, which is only consistent with that caused by a fluid mass such as a tidal wave and not by a hard substance such as a rock fall, is displayed throughout the remains. These dislocations would have occurred at or just prior to the moment of burial, before the rock had solidified, and before the body had decayed. This is in agreement with a creationist model of sudden burial and rapid deposition of sediments.

Incidently, the skull, feet and right arm were destroyed and lost during the extraction of the block of hard limestone from the deposits, which lay between the high and low water marks. The young woman, when alive, would have stood an estimated 5 foot 2 inches tall.

Further comments

The original publication of this pamphlet in January 1983 drew responses from the British Museum and other quarters.

It was pointed out that the archaeologist Edgar Clerc had excavated a comparatively recent graveyard not far from the point where the “Miocene Man” had been found. Clerc claimed that the fossil belongs to the same group of burials. However, Clerc’s graveyard was, as graveyards tend to be, above the high water mark. It was six feet above high tide and a little way inland. All of Clerc’s remains and artifacts were in soft but compacted sand, whereas Miocene Man was in very hard limestone.

A medical practitioner, Duchassaing, who lived near the fossil’s location, reported on it in 1847 and 1855. In the first report, Duchassaing claimed that the fossil must date from after 1492 AD because he found a piece of flint in a higher location and pre-Columbian Indians of Guadeloupe did not use flint (Clerc believed that they did). In the second report Dr Duchassaing changes his mind altogether and says that a piece of blue glass compels a pre-Columbian date for the fossil. He credits Miocene Man with the technology to produce coloured glass but not the ability to use flint!

The geologist Spencer (1901) surveyed the island and examined its various parts meticulously. Yet when he comes to report on the formation in which the fossil was found, he gives no report of his own. Are we seriously to believe that this qualified geologist travelled to Guadeloupe (no easy journey in those days) and conducted a painstaking survey of the entire island, yet neglected to report on what was surely its most interesting part? He was an evolutionist, and the evidence ran counter to the theory, so he found it safer to ignore the site.

In 1956, two further surveys of Guadeloupe were published by Butterlin and Hoffstetter. Interestingly, although they have no hesitation in assigning all of the island’s madreporic limestone’s (the same type as that which the skeleton was found) to the Miocene and even the older Oligocene geological ‘times’, neither of them even mention the human fossils. They were aware of them for they cite the papers of Duchassaing and Spencer who both refer to the fossils.

Stringer, an anthropologist with the British Museum, responded that the fossil had been found in recent beach rock, only hundreds of years old. A geological survey by Saint-Michael in 1961, which Stringer quotes, describes it as calcareous sand occasionally consolidated. Yet the skeletons were encased in limestone harder than marble used for statues. Saint-Michael’s report mentions a stratum that appears several miles inland, strongly consolidated, in slabs that lie broken away in a chaotic jumble. The report says these rocks can be seen on the beaches today. That describes nicely the slabs on the foreshore where the skeletons were found. This particular rock, however, is described as Ancient and Middle Quaternary, that is, Miocene.

The only satisfactory explanation is that the bodies of “Miocene Man” were broken as they were engulfed in fluid sediment which then crystallised into hard limestone, similar to the admittedly Miocene strata throughout most of the island. It is powerful evidence against an ape-like ancestry for man, but fits easily into a catastrophic scenario.


Source: Pamphlet No. 234 May 1995 – by Dr Bill Cooper


js_Black Line

© Genesis Expo – 17-18 The Hard, Portsmouth, PO1 3DT, United Kingdom Tel: 02392 293988 – Email: csmoffice@tiscali.co.uk

Scroll Up