Neanderthals

I'm sorry, but what are the tests that show it to be something OTHER than a basking shark?The only "evidence" that it is a plesiosaur is that it's rough outline is something like that of a plesiosaur. That's it. And in fact, that's evidence AGAINST, since the proportions are wrong.And that ain't no head on a neck, it's a lump on the end of a non-jointed, stiff "bar".Persistance of the idea that this is a plesiosaur isn't even speculation, it is simply irrational. It DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE A PLESIOSAUR, any more than a dog "looks like" a gazelle - same rough configuration, that's all.

quote:

---

"who's to say they don't match that of a Plesiosaur? "

---

Not even creationists would claim close bio-chemical similarities between these groups, which are very clearly very different "kinds" (in the intuitive sense used by Creationists).

quote:

---

"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.

​

What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?"

---

Why do I quote this? Becuase it's too good to only be posted once!

Yeah, I though Mark24's post was pretty much unanswerable myself!

So...how about answering the question that Mark asked, I repeated, then Mark repeated? Does it need to be posted a 4th time?