Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
They're not "finally trying to make some assertions"... they've been staring at it and *analyzing* it for all those years to make damn sure they weren't off-base about their analysis.
Also, often solutions to enigmas are found in data we've long had in our hands but that no one had money or time to look at. Sometimes it takes the right person to look at it (like when we finally started getting sophisticated cross-discipline research in dinosaurs that blew up the amateurish conceptions of early paleontologists).
|
I suppose I wrote that considering those things to be one in the same. They had the fossil for a period of time, they did some analysis and now, after they've come to terms with their findings as accurate, they're presenting their analysis as it relates to the scientific community. Or, at least, that was what I took from the article.
As to the second point, I find it slightly upsetting that we occasionally don't have the money or time to look more deeply into things like this, from a personal point of view. Evolution seems to be one of those subject so many people clamor about, yet a discovery of this magnitude is left to sit on the shelf to cursory analysis for ~17 years. Perhaps I'm reading far too much into the time between when it was discovered and now, and the article did mention that they had spent a good period of time looking for similar remains, but I would have thought there would have been some immediate testing and analysis to produce results, even if later testing proved those results to be false.