[FrustratedMonky]

This seems like a reverse logic article. Here are 'myths', but really 'Not'.

It isn't against naming this the Anthropocene, all of the myths are followed by reasons why they aren't myths and this is probably the Anthropocene. "From a certain point of view".

[BirAdam]

From an exceedingly anthropocentric point of view.

People assume that humans are the only or first animal of the Holocene to have left lasting global impacts. The mastodons essentially great swaths of steppe. Ants and worms have essentially altered the grounds. Bacteria generate the bulk of the oxygen. Beavers change the course of rivers and create lakes. The number of critters that alter the Earth is quite numerous. Humans also alter the Earth, and in increasingly large ways, but naming an epoch after humanity seems… egotistical when other critters do stuff equally impressive when scale is factored in.

[tgv]

The use of the word "myth" implies that people who don't accept it are conspiracy nut jobs. But in reality it is only a semantic debate. It doesn't change reality, nor does it allow better understanding. We clearly have an impact on the planet, but it is up to whoever in the very far future to decide if it really was the start of an epoch, assuming they would still express themselves in such primitive concepts.