This sounds like a lot of hot air and conjecture if you ask me.
The excavation did not yield a complete skeleton: seven teeth, two hand bones, three foot bones and one thigh bone were found, thought to belong to two adults and one child.
This sounds like a lot of hot air and conjecture if you ask me.
just as an example of this, the first remains of a T. rex were found in the 1870s and the first partial skeleton in 1900, but virtually all of the almost-complete (and best known) T. rex skeletons...
just as an example of this, the first remains of a T. rex were found in the 1870s and the first partial skeleton in 1900, but virtually all of the almost-complete (and best known) T. rex skeletons we have currently weren't found until the 1980s or 1990s. pretty much all paleontology ends up being done with partial skeletons, and unless you're particularly lucky, usually it's not until well after it's been established that there's a "there" there that more complete specimens are found or able to be classified as specimens of the there in the first place.
Fair point. I don't follow this stuff very closely. Haven't there been a number of "new species" found in the past that later turned out to be humans with birth defects or degenerative diseases? I...
Fair point. I don't follow this stuff very closely. Haven't there been a number of "new species" found in the past that later turned out to be humans with birth defects or degenerative diseases? I would assume that without a preponderance of evidence this could easily fall into that category.
This sounds like a lot of hot air and conjecture if you ask me.
just as an example of this, the first remains of a T. rex were found in the 1870s and the first partial skeleton in 1900, but virtually all of the almost-complete (and best known) T. rex skeletons we have currently weren't found until the 1980s or 1990s. pretty much all paleontology ends up being done with partial skeletons, and unless you're particularly lucky, usually it's not until well after it's been established that there's a "there" there that more complete specimens are found or able to be classified as specimens of the there in the first place.
Fair point. I don't follow this stuff very closely. Haven't there been a number of "new species" found in the past that later turned out to be humans with birth defects or degenerative diseases? I would assume that without a preponderance of evidence this could easily fall into that category.