Wednesday, January 12, 2005

I should be a scientist - Fossil shows baby dinosaur in mammal's belly: "Villagers digging in China's rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur.
Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago."

Has anyone considered the possibility that the scientists' original assertion was right and this "mamals hunted small dinosaurs" stuff is completely off track? Let's look at this logically. Scientists now have in their posession a mammal whose last meal was a small dinosaur. From this, which is most rational: (a)That some mammals regularly hunted and ate dinosaurs, or; (b)That one mammal ate a small dinosaur (possibly already dead and rancid), died as a result, and we found him?

I'm going with the latter.

No comments: