2 ms·

Wikipedia suggests this is not definitive, and maybe not even evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/

by biztos 3y ago

Wikipedia suggests this is not definitive, and maybe not even evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site#Criticis... This article is much more sympathetic (and also a fun read): https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cerutti-mastodon-20171222-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cerutti-masto... I’m no expert but it seems like this is still a controversial idea.

angiosperm 3y ago
Wikipedia over-represents the opinions of retired professors. As Max Planck wrote, "Science advances one funeral at a time". The usual shallow, reflexive objection is that the bones must have been broken and carefully re-arranged via being run over by construction equipment. This absurd suggestion has been very thoroughly demolished without assistance from construction equipment. It is hard for dump truck tires to produce green-stick fractures in 130,000-year-old bone, or to put bone fragments into the pores of stones and then move them yards away, all while underground.