Posted: Jun 20, 2019 8:02 am
Jayjay4547 wrote:No that's not good enough, it could explain why there could seem to be more complete info about dinosaurs, because paleontologists clump their categories more broadly than paleoanthropologists.
In for a penny, eh JJ?
Not sure what 'complete info' is supposed to mean.
But then I am not sure why you're comparing a single family to an entire clade then wondering why there's more of the latter.
But I do think it necessarily poses the question as to whether you're aware of the entire concept of geological stratigraphy. But if you did know and you started thinking about the quantities of relevant species present in different geological times, you might find that your notion is perhaps indicative of another elementary misunderstanding on your part.
I also think there's a further amusing quantity in the above which mirrors your misunderstanding of sexual selection as being something different than natural selection. Palaeanthropology is a branch of palaeontology, JJ. The same phylogenetic methods are employed in both with respect to identifying and categorizing species.
Again, given how little you know - and how obvious it is that you don't know it - why exactly are your pontifications meant to be considered seriously?