Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
anthracite
· 5 years ago
· FIRST
It's a mangled up mongoose
4
pogmothoin
· 5 years ago
Its a cat
3
guest_
· 5 years ago
The skeleton belongs to a carnivorous mammal. Putting asides all the other reasons that finding a dinosaur skeleton so well preserved would be unlikely. As @anthracite says- it’s most likely from a family of animals similar to the mongoose. Pretty much every original article is dated from December 2017, and they say that the bones were “sent for testing.” If you try and find any follow up information you won’t easily come across an article where they show the results. Because it’s immediate obvious that isn’t a dinosaur and their either weren’t any test, or it wasn’t very news worthy/a lot of people didn’t want to be embarrassed by a headline saying: “oops. Not a dinosaur.” As a fun fact- in the early 2000’s a research team made controversial claims to have recovered proteins from a T-Rex fossil. As of 2018 they are still working to prove their findings but have support. While it isn’t yet “fact” that they are indeed dinosaur proteins, or that it would be possible- it’s still science!
6
sir_spiderman
· 5 years ago
This is somehow worse than the idiots who think they found a dinosaur with blood still in them.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
Lol. Actually, what led the woman primarily behind the research to where she is now, was that in the late 90’s she thought she saw blood in in a fossil sample under the microscope. She credits that as a defining moment in her research. Interestingly enough she claims to have been a new Earth creationist before auditing a paleontology course where she started to believe evolution was real and the earth was much older than her beliefs held. According to her it cost her many relationships including her Husband and church friends. Now her theories on protein surviving millions of years have also largely alienated her from other scientists and funding. It sounds like a long shot to me, but if it could be readily reproduced and independently verified it could transform paleontology and other fields as well, and open the door to long sought answers. But wanting it to be true isn’t the same as proving or believing.
3
sir_spiderman
· 5 years ago
Do you mean Mary Higby Schweitzer? She never really claimed that it was red blood cells. At best, she indicated that it was possible. Later research showed that it was not blood cells, and she accepted that. I wasn't able to find the source, but I recall an interview where she stated that she regrets making that study due to how people have hijacked it for their own agenda.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
Thank you for clarifying. No, she did not claim they were red blood cells. She thought she saw red blood cells and rejected the possibility. When she spoke to her professor on the issue he basically told her to prove why they couldn’t be red blood cells, which she thought and and says inspired her later research.
2
abhinnav
· 5 years ago
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5182571/amp/Corpse-resembling-DINOSAUR-flesh-bones.html
