Yes when it comes to the relevant info. The anaphoric references are all over the place; he, her, she, man*, they all refer to the same fossil.
*not quite an anaphoric reference, I know. I'm still treating it as one.
I can only really guess whether they’re talking about one or two subjects here.
It's clearly one. Dated to be six years old, of unknown sex, nicknamed "Tina".
Why does it show someone cared for the mother as well?
This does not show lack of coherence. Instead it shows the same as the "is it?" from your comment: assuming that a piece of info is clear by context, when it isn't. [This happens all the time.]
That said, my guess (I'll repeat for emphasis: this is a guess): I think that this shows that they cared for the mother because, without doing so, the child would've died way, way earlier.
That all reads like bad AI writing to me.
I genuinely don't think so.
Modern LLMs typically don't leave sentence fragments like "on the territory of modern Spain. Years ago." They're consistent with anaphoric references, even when they don't make sense in the real world. And they don't screw up with prepositions, like switching "in" with "on". All those errors are typically human.
On the other hand, LLMs fail hard on a discursive level. They don't know the topic (in this case, the fossil). At least this error is not present here.
Based on that I think that a better explanation for why this text is so poorly written is "CBA". The author couldn't be arsed to review it. Myself wrote a lot of shit like this when drunk, sleepy, or in a rush.
I'll go a step further and say that the author likely speaks more than one language, and they were copying this stuff from some site in another language that has grammatical gender. I'm saying this because it explains why the anaphoric references are all over the place.