No, points like those you fled from like how they date when the rocks were molten and etc. Instead of dealing with the issue (you can't) you try to wave the religious robes of peer reviewed vague nonsense. Pathetic.
Sure i can. Let's start with the abstract of the actual paper:
The MESSENGER spacecraft provided geochemical data for surface rocks on Mercury. In this study, we
use the major element composition of these lavas to constrain melting conditions and residual mantle
sources on Mercury. We combine modelling and high-temperature (1320–1580◦C), low- to high-pressure
(0.1 to 3GPa) experiments on average compositions for the Northern Volcanic Plains (NVP) and the
high-Mg region of the Intercrater Plains and Heavily Cratered Terrains (High-Mg IcP-HCT). Near-liquidus
phase relations show that the S-free NVP and High-Mg IcP-HCT compositions are multiply saturated
with forsterite and enstatite at 1450◦C – 1.3 GPa and 1570◦C – 1.7 GPa, respectively. For S-saturated
melts (1.5–3 wt.% S), the multiple saturation point (MSP) is shifted to 1380◦C – 0.75 GPa for NVP
and 1480◦C – 0.8 GPa for High-Mg IcP-HCT. To expand our experimental results to the range of
surface compositions, we used and calibrated the pMELTS thermodynamic calculator and estimated phase
equilibria of ∼5800 compositions from the Mercurian surface and determined the P –T conditions of
liquid–forsterite–enstatite MSP (1300–1600◦C; 0.25–1.25 GPa). Surface basalts were produced by 10 to
50% partial melting of variably enriched lherzolitic mantle sources. The relatively low pressure of the
olivine–enstatite–liquid MSP seems most consistent with decompression batch melting and melts being
segregated from their residues near the base of Mercury’s ancient lithosphere. The average melting degree
is lower for the young NVP (0.27 ± 0.04) than for the older IcP-HCT (0.46 ± 0.02), indicating that melt
productivity decreased with time. The mantle potential temperature required to form Mercurian lavas
and the initial depth of melting also decreased from the older High-Mg IcP-HCT terrane (1650◦C and
360 km) to the younger lavas covering the NVP regions (1410◦C and 160 km). This evolution supports
strong secular cooling of Mercury’s mantle between 4.2 and 3.7 Ga and explains why very little magmatic
activity occurred after 3.7 Ga.
Now, given the data from MESSENGER, why would experimental studies on the ability of various scenarios to produce observed crystallization patterns not be relevant to constraining the melt conditions of those rocks?
Now, I know you have your whole thing about "but what if things were different in some highly specific way that just made everything appear to have behaved according to known laws of physics?", but setting that aside, the actual dating of the surface was NOT from the melt experiments, but rather established by crater density by Weider et al. (2012) and Marchi et al. (2013). which you would have known if you looked at the actual paper and dissected that rather than an article about a press release.
Which kind of gets to my point about press releases not being scientific articles.
Actual paper is available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...cesses_and_mantle_sources_of_lavas_on_Mercury
[mic drop]
ing and 
ing do not. But it's The HI Theory, so let's make up that it does! ![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
