An unusual find in China suggests some early mammals may have hunted dinosaur for dinner. The fossil shows a badgerlike creature chomping down on a small, beaked dinosaur, their skeletons intertwined.
That’s not true at all. Wolves and lions constantly take on prey much bigger than them. And the dinosaur was an herbivore. Why would it be the aggressor?
I think I’ll go with what the paleontologists who have had a chance to study the fossil have to say over someone who viewed a picture on the internet and came to their own conclusion that goes against the paleontologists.
“It does seem like this is a prehistoric hunt, captured in stone, like a freeze frame,” University of Edinburgh paleontologist Steve Brusatte, who was not involved with the study, said in an email.
If you read the study, they flat out said they dont know and have several hypothesis.
They’re just running with the one that is least plausible because some people will believe the headline and share it on social media.
I don’t understand what you’re not getting, but I don’t think explaining anymore will help
If you read the study, they flat out said they dont know and have several hypothesis.
I have read the study. It says that it was either predation or scavenging and gives reasons why. It also explains why the mammal would be the one being the aggressor. It does not suggest in any place in that study what you suggested. This is what you said:
The simplest explanation was the mammal was on defense
Please show where the paper agrees with that supposed simplest explanation.
That’s not true at all. Wolves and lions constantly take on prey much bigger than them. And the dinosaur was an herbivore. Why would it be the aggressor?
I think I’ll go with what the paleontologists who have had a chance to study the fossil have to say over someone who viewed a picture on the internet and came to their own conclusion that goes against the paleontologists.
So…
Not the one making the claim that the mammal was preying on the dinosaur?
Because he hasn’t studied the fossil.
Glad we’re on the same page
There was a study. Or did you ignore that?
It was even linked to in the article.
If you read the study, they flat out said they dont know and have several hypothesis.
They’re just running with the one that is least plausible because some people will believe the headline and share it on social media.
I don’t understand what you’re not getting, but I don’t think explaining anymore will help
I have read the study. It says that it was either predation or scavenging and gives reasons why. It also explains why the mammal would be the one being the aggressor. It does not suggest in any place in that study what you suggested. This is what you said:
Please show where the paper agrees with that supposed simplest explanation.