3 ms·

More reasons for a nonhanthopogenic explanation: Some of the smaller burrows (dug by armadillos) are too small to fit a human. These kind of burrows are only

by ufo 8y ago

More reasons for a nonhanthopogenic explanation: Some of the smaller burrows (dug by armadillos) are too small to fit a human. These kind of burrows are only found in south america. There is no evidence of human presence (wall paintings, fireplace remains, etc). Except in some cases and even then only at the very entrance (suggesting that people found these later but never ventured in the dark parts) There is evidence of claw marks on the walls, but no evidence of human tool use (pick axes, etc) Some of the burrows are dug in sandstone.

pvaldes 8y ago
> Some of the smaller burrows (dug by armadillos) are too small to fit a human. How much small?. Children worked in mines also >These kind of burrows are only found in south america. Attribuable to local cultural differences. You can find mohais only in Rapa-nui. > There is no evidence of human presence (wall paintings, fireplace remains, etc). Except in some cases... The article talks about modern graffitis and marks of modern tools. > and even then only at the very entrance (suggesting that people found these later but never ventured in the dark parts) You can't make a fire in a semi-flooded area. And they probably wouldn't make a fire close to clay if their purpose is to dig in the clay looking for precious stones that can be distroyed by fire. Softer is better. > There is evidence of claw marks on the walls This is circular reasoning. There is evidence of marks on the walls and we don't know who did it or how they were created. > but no evidence of human tool use (pick axes, etc) Neither is evidence of sloth bones or broken claws or fosilised faeces or dead animals. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe we are not looking in the right place. > Some of the burrows are dug in sandstone. Keratin is softer than sandstone and a soft material will not scratch a harder material. This is evidence against non-anthropogenic theory unless you add teeth to the equation (but sloths and armadillos belong to the order edentata, that means "toothless"). They do not have strong renewable frontal teeth like rodents have

by ufo 8y ago

pvaldes 8y ago

> Some of the smaller burrows (dug by armadillos) are too small to fit a human. How much small?. Children worked in mines also >These kind of burrows are only found in south america. Attribuable to local cultural differences. You can find mohais only in Rapa-nui. > There is no evidence of human presence (wall paintings, fireplace remains, etc). Except in some cases... The article talks about modern graffitis and marks of modern tools. > and even then only at the very entrance (suggesting that people found these later but never ventured in the dark parts) You can't make a fire in a semi-flooded area. And they probably wouldn't make a fire close to clay if their purpose is to dig in the clay looking for precious stones that can be distroyed by fire. Softer is better. > There is evidence of claw marks on the walls This is circular reasoning. There is evidence of marks on the walls and we don't know who did it or how they were created. > but no evidence of human tool use (pick axes, etc) Neither is evidence of sloth bones or broken claws or fosilised faeces or dead animals. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe we are not looking in the right place. > Some of the burrows are dug in sandstone. Keratin is softer than sandstone and a soft material will not scratch a harder material. This is evidence against non-anthropogenic theory unless you add teeth to the equation (but sloths and armadillos belong to the order edentata, that means "toothless"). They do not have strong renewable frontal teeth like rodents have