[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Study on a Possible Carboniferous Human Femur Fossil
I agree with Dave. The microscoped cross section doesn't look like any I've
ever seen. Looks very mineralogical, like it's composed of flat, thin crystals.
And it looks like the guy just labeled any old dimple or pit therein with some
Assuming the femur provided for comparison is not from a very small individual,
the "fossil" is rather long, and proportionally quite a bit thicker. Not to
mention lumpy, and the main shaft of the femur is more strongly "arched" than
the "fossil," whose joint areas are proportionally larger than the model of the
Also, some rocks in the image are suspiciously similar in color to the
"fossil," consistant with Dave's infilling explanation. Either way,
extraordinary claims require at least mediocre evidence. I eagerly await the
next issue of Nature, which I'm sure will feature this on the cover. :P
--- On Tue, 1/27/09, David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: A Study on a Possible Carboniferous Human Femur Fossil
> To: "DML" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 10:30 PM
> does not at all look like the inside of a bone. The whole
> thing could be a piece of fossil wood and even more likely
> the infilling of a cleft in the rock... even from outside,
> it doesn't look like a bone.
> This happens when people compare two things. Unless you
> compare three, you can't say anything.