I'm not an expert by any means, but I read the study linked, and this sounds like such a massive stretch. They have one data sample which they blended with a previous data sample, added in a huge amount of assumptions, then drew a conclusion they were looking for.
That's kind of how it works with these things. There's not many samples to work with. One of the big reasons there's been so much revision and change over the past few decades is more samples have been found or existing ones have been re-examined using new techniques. Those earlier ideas were frequently based off just a few bone fragments and a whole lot of extrapolation.
It was shocking to learn how few fossils and fragments we have, hominid and otherwise.
Also, from a scientific point of view, Chinese research has a strong history of just making shit up. They're one of the biggest polluters in journal articles with irreproducible research, illogical conclusions, and major conflicts of interest.
When their autocratic government has its hands in everything, you can't trust anything.
Edit: just a little source before anyone asks https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2891906/
You're putting a lot more politely than I really was thinking lol
I mean, they were shit for a very long period of time. But at least in my domain they've (I think?) gotten much better. I wouldn't cite any Chinese research in my work from 10-20 years go. These days, I really need to scrutinize something. There is still definitely a paper mill aspect to what I read (I was reviewing a paper as a referee the other day and I swore I was missing it, until like, the 5th re-read, and yes. They had no N for their sample size), but like, there definitely has been a shift.
This is exactly my immediate reaction. Whenever they find something amazing in China I just assume they're making shit up again.
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind