What arose from reading the Colbert piece was a quick understanding of the amount of information we lack with regards to dinosaurs. We are given several pieces of evidence of prehistoric object; dinosaur tracks and fossilized remains being the most prominent examples. Yet despite this information, there is much missing with regards to context, as pointed out by the paper. One such example would be the remains of a dinosaur print that is not replicated by any of the dinosaur fossils in the area. Why would this prints not have matching fossils. Did these dinosaurs perhaps migrate through the area to another location, thus leaving the tracks. Perhaps we are incorrectly labeling the fossils and some of the fossils to match up with the footprints. This lack of context in the prehistoric evidence that pops up is quite disconcerting. It is like putting a puzzle together, but not even having all the pieces available to you.
It is almost if nature is trying to mislead you about your findings. In a lot of ways, scientific evidence is often not intuitive as a result of barren amount of information. This very thought is repeated in the Bedrock article. It is mentioned that the sedimentary rocks in the locations are difficult to study with certainty because of our weathering has affected them through time. As a result, scientists have to resort to using basalt samples instead because they are less susceptible to weathering conditions. Perhaps there is evidence that was only accessible to the sedimentary rocks rather than the basalt, but was removed due to weathering. Scientists would never be able to tell. It is difficulties like this that make studying prehistoric evidence such as limited process.
