[dangerdoc]

I haven’t gone back to see my exact wording but I think I may not have communicated my thoughts well.

This is both intriguing and compelling. Some aspect of established science is going to have to give way. Either it’s 65 million years old and our understanding of protein entropy is flawed or it’s younger and our timeline is flawed.

You don’t find that terribly interesting, compelling, intriguing? This is the kind of stuff that makes science fun.

[tacticalogic]

This is both intriguing and compelling. Some aspect of established science is going to have to give way. Either it’s 65 million years old and our understanding of protein entropy is flawed or it’s younger and our timeline is flawed.

The article doesn't seem to consider any possibility that something happened that the protein entropy models didn't account for. By their account the only possible explanation is that the timeline is wrong.