Posted: Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.


Gosh that is an interesting point. Here's a suggestion, just a possibility. In the case of general palaeontology, there is more neutral interest, so that you are likely to regard two speciments as simply "later" and "earlier" versions of one species. But in the hairily fraught world of human origins, there is a strong tendency to regard newly discovered fossils as in different species or even different genera. Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.

OK I'm ducking out of here.

You're crackpotting out here.