I have not read the research, but I read the article and your comment. Your fifth word is absurd. There is really no need to use such hyperbole. The article is

I have not read the research, but I read the article and your comment. Your fifth word is absurd. There is really no need to use such hyperbole. The article is patently not absurd, though one might reasonably disagree with parts of it. I imagine you just reacted to the headline. As far as I can tell, from reading the article: the researchers have determined - by identifying lower entropy in the distribution of trees useful-to-people - a higher probability than pure chance would allow, evidence of ancient cultivation. Especially around known architectural sites going back up to 8,000 years. Is that a reasonable summary of the article / of the research?