• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think I’ll go with what the paleontologists who have had a chance to study the fossil

    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

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “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

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.