The part of the article that is idiotic, and I guess the basis of the "new study," is the attempt to compare fetal development to specific prehistoric fossils. There is no need and no ability to make such a specific comparison.
"The part of the article that is idiotic, and I guess the basis of the "new study," is the attempt to compare fetal development to specific prehistoric fossils. There is no need and no ability to make such a specific comparison."
Thanks. I strongly suspected this. But is the whole premise of the article correct? I'm in my 50s and I remember that when I was a kid this was believed---but I thought it was disproved---but these correlations were found to be coincidental.