Thanks Red Badger.
Posted on 01/23/2025 12:02:55 PM PST by Red Badger
PinGGG!..............
What kind of coat is he wearing in that pic.? It looks like pilt down.
Faux Fur........................
I wonder if Ron Perlman consented to the use of his picture ....
Amusing.
Thanks Red Badger.
So a few cut marks makes them think that hominins existed further back than previously believed. I'm not saying it's impossible that hominins were around back then. I'm just saying that this info isn't enough to put too much into. For example, we already know examples of bite marks leaving straight line marks in bones.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6188009/
Long and straight bites from tyrannosaurs are typically left as a result of scrape feeding where the premaxillary teeth are drawn across the cortex (Hone & Watabe, 2010) and usually leave multiple subparallel traces that are broad because of the D-shaped nature of the teeth and these are therefore rather unlike mark 2.
If they don’t have the skin how do they know he was all wrinkled up?
“Gypsies, tramps and thieves...”
Watch out Neanderthal cave men...hide yer wallets
Do these guys just pull imaginary dates out of their butts? 1.5 million years this 2 billion years that.
“While it is clear that the hominin presence in Eurasia at this time was likely geographically and temporally discontinuous, the preponderance of ephemeral traces for hominins in this region can no longer be ignored.”
Is it me or does this sound like these people predated the people who were supposed to have come from Africa??
“Fossil data were then statistically compared with a sample of 898 BSMs of known origin, including: 405 cut marks from a variety of stone tool types and raw materials53; 275 tooth marks from crocodiles and five species of mammalian carnivores54; 130 trample marks produced by cows on substrates including sand, gravel, and soil55; and 88 percussion marks from both anvils and hammerstones56.”
The original study source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56154-9#Sec6
Yes .....
Twenty specimens total exhibit cut marks; of these, 7 display high-confidence cut marks, 12 show probable cut marks, and 1 specimen presents both types of marks (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2–21, Supplementary Data 2); detailed descriptions of all marks can be found in Supplementary Note 5.
I'm not saying that these aren't real cut-marks. And I do hold on to the possibility. I'm just saying I'd like more than 7 to have more certainty.
Cut marks were identified using two methods: 1) qualitative analyses modified from18,19, and 2) quantitative analyses using methods outlined in ref.
Hmmmmm....now this is interesting. We're talking about identifying the cut-marks with "qualitative analyses". I hope you understand that my skepticism meter just ticked up a few notches. Keep in mind that I fell for the Lucy scam and others decades ago.
But if you look at the images it is obvious. These marks look exactly like butchering marks from later periods. And they are on the right places that would be required to cut main muscle attachment points. I have seen a LOT of these and they fit the bill.
Oprah??
No!! Whoopi!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
