this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
78 points (92.4% liked)
science
22370 readers
144 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
Well, since you're source isn't from the Chinese government, it will be taken by some as western propaganda
This is exactly my immediate reaction. Whenever they find something amazing in China I just assume they're making shit up again.
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.