3 ms·
The study this article is based off seems to rely on a logical contradiction. The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was determined t
by indubitable 9y ago
The study this article is based off seems to rely on a logical contradiction.
The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was determined to a literally unbelievable level of precision (+/- 31.025 days for a 50,000 year old corpse of a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago) by assuming that neanderthal growth rates were effectively identical to homo sapien growth rates - so enabling them to determine its age by markers based on homo sapien growth rates. They then use this assumption to show that the growth rate of neanderthals were not, in fact, identical to homo sapiens. This seemingly contradicts the assumption they used to determine the specimen's age, which in turn would effectively nullify the entire paper since it thus negates any attempt at such a precise measurement of age.
- Stratoscope 9y agoIt's always best to use the maximum possible precision. This way people know they can trust your data. Round numbers would lead people to believe you were just making things up. Source: How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff and Irving Geis https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/
- aaron695 9y agoAlthough possible I guess, but it seems weird they are so accurate on tooth age but don't even know the sex of the child. "bone robusticity strongly suggests that it was male "