• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Paleontology: Marks evidence of crocodile bites, not human tool makers?

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,773
Reaction score
15,242
Location
Massachusetts
Scars left on bones could have come from hungry reptiles instead of Stone Age butchery, researchers say

Science News said:
Recent reports of African and North American animal fossils bearing stone-tool marks from being butchered a remarkably long time ago may be a crock. Make that a croc.

Crocodile bites damage animal bones in virtually the same ways that stone tools do, say paleoanthropologist Yonatan Sahle of the University of Tübingen in Germany and his colleagues. Animal bones allegedly cut up for meat around 3.4 million years ago in East Africa (SN: 9/11/10, p. 8) and around 130,000 years ago in what’s now California (SN: 5/27/17, p. 7) come from lakeside and coastal areas. Those are places where crocodiles could have wreaked damage now mistaken for butchery, the scientists report online the week of November 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Larger samples of animal fossils, including complete bones from various parts of the body, are needed to begin to tease apart the types of damage caused by stone tools, crocodile bites and trampling of bones by living animals, Sahle’s team concludes. “More experimental work on bone damage caused by big, hungry crocs is also critical,” says coauthor Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

In a field where researchers reap big rewards for publishing media-grabbing results in high-profile journals, such evidence could rein in temptations to over-interpret results, says archaeologist David Braun of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who did not participate in the new study or the two earlier ones. “There’s a push to publish extraordinary findings, but evolutionary researchers always have to weigh what’s interesting versus what’s correct.”

...
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,130
Reaction score
10,901
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com

Interesting, though the article does point out that there were no crocodilians 130k years ago in the part of North America where the "butchered" mastodon was found. The croc explanation seems far more plausible for the much older bones found in Africa in the same sediments as the remains of large crocodiles. The issue is far from settled in both cases, I suspect.

This is an example of why it's so important for researchers to consider (and mention) alternative explanations when they present data that fails to falsify their hypothesis (so can be said to be consistent with it). Too often we forget the truth we drill into our freshman bio students--data never actually prove a hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,773
Reaction score
15,242
Location
Massachusetts
Yeah, I suppose it's best taken as a cautionary flag, to be careful drawing conclusions? It's provocative and easy to say, "these marks look like humans wielded stone tools on this bone", but you'd best have dotted all your eyes and crossed your tees before saying so.