I like how the article gives all sorts of definite statements which are completely at odds with what the published paper actually says!
I guess that the authors of the scientific paper are among the least happy persons regarding this news article. Notwithstanding that the conclusion in the original paper is quite controversial too, given the evidence at hand... There are enough other explanations that are not explored, but at least they will get enough citations now
Science journalism at its worst. It's almost a parody. It's not really worth examining why the article is so bad, but the actual science is interesting.
True. I was flabbergasted at the statement. Sample size and the actual fossil record is minimal for such a bold statement. to be made. The fossil finds and what they infer are interesting from a science perspective, but nowhere near even justifying a claim that modern humans evolved
Here is some better reporting on the scientific articles: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm Ape that lived in Europe 7 million years ago could be human ancestor, controversial study suggests