Oddly enough, that directly contradicts a recent publication also from the University of Bristol. Science, red in tooth and claw.
Elis Newham, Pamela G. Gill, Philippa Brewer, Michael J. Benton, Vincent Fernandez, Neil J. Gostling, David Haberthür, Jukka Jernvall, Tuomas Kankaanpää, Aki Kallonen, Charles Navarro, Alexandra Pacureanu, Kelly Richards, Kate Robson Brown, Philipp Schneider, Heikki Suhonen, Paul Tafforeau, Katherine A. Williams, Berit Zeller-Plumhoff, Ian J. Corfe. Reptile-like physiology in Early Jurassic stem-mammals . Nature Communications , 2020; 11 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18898-4
Hmmm. If scientists cannot agree about this, how can we trust them about anything…? [Edit: ]
We can trust them to be independently evaluating the evidence.
Emojis are the last refuge of the inarticulate. Just sayin’.
Just demonstrating Poe’s Law:
Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied
Poe’s Law is roughly that online parodies of religious extremism are indistinguishable from instances of sincere extremism. Poe’s Law may be expressed in a variety of ways, each highlighting either a facet of indirect discourse generally, attitudes of online audiences, or the quality of online religious material. As a consequence of the polarization of online discussions, invocations of Poe’s Law have relevance in wider circles than religion. Further, regular invocations of Poe’s Law in critical discussions have the threat of further entrenching and polarizing views.
It doesn’t work if you already know the person doing the simulation.