The precise lineage of humans is unclear but the candidates are well-established. This author appears to have no qualifications in the field, yet is judging skulls by how they look to him and opining that the consensus of expert opinion is 'impossible'. Given that he's also editor of conspiracy and fringe pseudoscience nonsense fluff like '
The Truth about Extra Terrestrials' and '
Understanding Reality', my Bayesian priors for his reliability and credibility are rock-bottom.
That's before his logical and factual errors. For example, other
primates are not 5 to 10 times stronger than we are:
“There’s this idea out there that chimpanzees are superhuman strong,” says Matthew O’Neill at the University of Arizona in Phoenix. Yet his team’s experiments and computer models show that a chimpanzee muscle is only about a third stronger than a human one of the same size.
This result matches well with the few tests that have been done, which suggest that when it comes to pulling and jumping, chimps are about 1.5 times as strong as humans relative to their body mass. But because they are lighter than the average person, humans can actually outperform them in absolute terms, say O’Neill.
His findings suggest that other apes have similar muscle strength to chimpanzees. “Humans are the odd ones,” he says.
And this comment seems odd: "
Most damningly (for Darwinism), there is not a single human bone
in the supposed pre-human fossil record." - would you
expect to find human bones in the
pre-human fossil record?
My conclusion? Meh.
