Further the 'explanation' that males might have taken more risks, explains nothing. The one common denominator between every single mammal from ancient times is, they are all dead. It doesn't matter how; all their skeletons should be somewhere in the fossil record. A disparity would have to explain how male skeletons died in precisely the right way to be preserved more often. Which seems like nonsense.
This is false. Most skeletons decompose. Only some happen to end up in the right spot to remain intact long enough to become fossils. Also, these mammoth remains aren't fossilized, they aren't old enough. These are just remains that have been preserved.
Why do you think this? It is not a true statement.
Not all skeletons get fossilised - it requires a fairly particular set of conditions. It may be (likely is according to the people studying it) the case that males got into these conditions more frequently than females.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-conditions-increase-the-...
It does though:
>Luckily for paleontologists, some of these death sites—bogs, crevices, lakes—are pretty good at preserving remains.
I think it's because of the way they see the problem domain. Both ways of seeing the problem domain look much the same.
I mean, a thoroughly explored domain and an utterly unexplored domain present much the same picture, in that...
There are not many unexplained mysteries hanging around.
Which may be translated to "The problem domain is thoroughly understood".
It's the problem of invisible stuff. You can't measure its extent.
Right, like I said, person with no domain knowledge alleges experts are making “flippant” and “unfounded guesses”.
What exactly were you trying to prove?
Let's be totally honest. Paleontologists have make astronomical errors in interpreting probabilities and statistics in the past.