So, it is a hypothesis. Note that the article OP posted even calls it that.
You have demonstrated that you are able to quote an online dictionary.
Are you able to show that this hypothesis is a theory, contradicting literally every scientists who agrees that it is a hypothesis? Contradicting the authors of the study?
If this status is confirmed by additional fossil evidence, Graecopithecus would be the oldest known hominin and the oldest known crown hominine, as the evidence for the gorillin status of Chororapithecus is much weaker than the hominin status of Graecopithecus [8]. More fossils are needed but at this point it seems likely that the Eastern Mediterranean needs to be considered as just as likely a place of hominine diversification and hominin origins as tropical Africa.
Now how the fuck is this a theory when the study itself acknowledges that more supporting evidence is required?
Educate yourself for fuck's sake. Do your own research.
Why do the ignorant have such intellectual pride? Truly it is a mystery that those who know so little are so sure of what they think they know.
A hypothesis is a specific falsifiable statement that you set out to test, and a theory is, in short a narrative to explain existing evidence of a larger dataset. Theory often comes BEFORE hypothesis testing, but sometime data is accumulated which results in a theory AFTER data is gathered in order to explain it.
Your knowledge of the scientific method is utterly lacking. Example: An apple falls and hits your head, you come up with the theory of gravity to explain it. Or, given the theory of gravity you heard about from guy named Newton, you drop apples to test they theory for yourself.
Note, you didn't even comprehend the study that was sent along you disingenuous fuck, essentially, as dropping apples to test an existing theory of human origin as not from Africa.
Ponder for a moment, why those who engage in science make a distinction between a "theory" and a "hypothesis".
Below are a lot of links for the use of the term "out of Africa theory" of human evolution, and the under various names, and competing theories, usually called the "multiple origin theory". I'm sure you can find a journalist if you look hard enough, who like you, confuses hypothesis and theory, but they, like you would be wrong.
If you look in scholarly literature, they use "theory" here.
Exactly.
So, it is a hypothesis. Note that the article OP posted even calls it that.
You have demonstrated that you are able to quote an online dictionary.
Are you able to show that this hypothesis is a theory, contradicting literally every scientists who agrees that it is a hypothesis? Contradicting the authors of the study?
Here is the actual study.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
This is the end paragraph:
Now how the fuck is this a theory when the study itself acknowledges that more supporting evidence is required?
Educate yourself for fuck's sake. Do your own research.
Why do the ignorant have such intellectual pride? Truly it is a mystery that those who know so little are so sure of what they think they know.
A hypothesis is a specific falsifiable statement that you set out to test, and a theory is, in short a narrative to explain existing evidence of a larger dataset. Theory often comes BEFORE hypothesis testing, but sometime data is accumulated which results in a theory AFTER data is gathered in order to explain it.
Your knowledge of the scientific method is utterly lacking. Example: An apple falls and hits your head, you come up with the theory of gravity to explain it. Or, given the theory of gravity you heard about from guy named Newton, you drop apples to test they theory for yourself.
Note, you didn't even comprehend the study that was sent along you disingenuous fuck, essentially, as dropping apples to test an existing theory of human origin as not from Africa.
So, apart from you, who calls this hypothesis a theory?
Quote please.
Ponder for a moment, why those who engage in science make a distinction between a "theory" and a "hypothesis".
Below are a lot of links for the use of the term "out of Africa theory" of human evolution, and the under various names, and competing theories, usually called the "multiple origin theory". I'm sure you can find a journalist if you look hard enough, who like you, confuses hypothesis and theory, but they, like you would be wrong.
If you look in scholarly literature, they use "theory" here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC41400/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5409/1828.summary
https://www.scirp.org/html/24586.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.1.1
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2011/615094.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/007327538502300105
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052014000100007 (do a CNTL F for the word "theory" on this one)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25121018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
So, apart from you, who calls this hypothesis a theory?
Quote please.
Look, it is perfectly fine to admit being wrong. It is however pathetic to spend so much time on deflecting from the topic at hand.
Did you read the study? Can you explain why this study proposes to be a theory?