The study is not about shared origins. Everyone knows that many stories have shared origins. To know this, one just has to analyze the historical texts and deve

The study is not about shared origins. Everyone knows that many stories have shared origins. To know this, one just has to analyze the historical texts and development of certain stories during the last hundreds of years. The Babylonian confusion was common sense for the last 1000-2000 years. The study is about claiming some specific stories are definitely 6000 years old just because some shady analysis based on nothing but thin air. Historical linguistics works with non-existent languages. Making assumptions about a non-existent language is one thing, but claiming to know both the time when those languages were spoken and the stories that were told is pure hybris (Lyle Campbell and Paul Heggarty refuse to believe in so-called glossochronology). The entire field of historical linguistics is pure speculation without any hard evidence. It is impossible to know languages that do not exist anymore or have no written sources. The Australian linguist Robert Dixon rightfully said that the proponents of far-reaching linguistic affinities undercut the level of what constitutes good science “to the point of nonsense”. He explains that languages can not be reconstructed.