قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Science https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ How to interpret a new fossil dinosaur cemetery research – quartz

How to interpret a new fossil dinosaur cemetery research – quartz



In the most important news of a dinosaur study published this week, announced that the recently discovered cemetery shows the impact of an asteroid that hit the Earth, destroying most of the living plants and animals, 66 million years ago. Many publications revealed this discovery as "scammable" cemetery, and reported that the study showed that dinosaurs were killed by asteroid effects rather than declined before it hit the Earth (which is an alternative theory to the end of the era of dinosaurs ) This conclusion will indeed answer the main question in paleontology studies.

"We realized that bad things happened right after the strike, but nobody found such evidence of smoking," said the co-author and paleontologist at the University of Kansas David. Burnham, according to The Independent . "People said:" We find that this explosion killed the dinosaurs, but why do not we have dead bodies everywhere? "Well, now we have the body."

True research, although still interesting, is a little more complicated. In fact, Bernheim's quotes were originally published in a statement from the University of Kansas, but the Independent stopped its next line: "They are not dinosaurs, but I think that eventually they will be found."

is not the result of the study, which was published on April 1 in the writings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) but the article of New York, published March 29, is ahead of the embargo of the study. New York has clearly worked on the story for months and, according to New Scientist, has agreed with the PNAS that it may publish early after the research published another publication.

The history of New York contains a lot of attractive details that are not really included in the PNAS study, including the fact that it's important for researchers to find the "dinosaur" scum in a place located in the formation of Hell Creek in North Dakota. Despite the fact that the article reports the detection of pores, bones, dinosaur teeth and unopened eggs in a bundle with a stored embryo, the study does not mention any dinosaur residue, except for a short reference to the dinosaur fragment. . Research author and discoverer of the fossil site, Robert DePalma of the Natural History Museum of Palm Beach, told National Geographic that the PNAS study is an introduction to the site, and further research will have more detailed information on dinosaurs

. Several paleontologists, however, expressed skepticism. "It's amazing that over the past six years, DePalma has been very hyperbolic and mysterious," said National Geographic Kirk Johnson, director of the National Natural History Museum Smithson and an expert on the formation of the Gulf of hell. "The document is in order and we can talk about its meaning, [but we]it is combined with the article of New Yorker, which has much more nuances and many other claims. It just makes us all a bit queasy. "

Other unfriendly refer to the New Yorker article, though some are found to be envious and not scientifically unsumoused. Paleontologist Jack Horner, who had to revise his theory that T. rex was solely a scavenger based on DePalma's preliminary conclusion, told New Yorker that he did not remember who was DePalma. "We do not know the students very well in the community," he said. DePalma is not well known in paleontology, partly because he is still finishing his PhD thesis.

An inevitable study of such a scale will lead to the fact that they will take envy; scientists are still only people. Like all scientific discoveries, this conclusion will not be confirmed by one isolated paper. It will take several reviewed articles and confirmations from other paleontologists before the findings are taken as an indisputable proof that the fossil cemetery shows how dinosaurs die. However, skepticism and discussion in response to a study, however, are not a sign of error: this is how science works.


Source link