Which means you have some idea of the assumptions being made, or you wouldn't characterize the research as being "based on assumptions." That thought would never cross the mind of anyone who understood science, and is typically a creationist talking point.
So, either you have an idea of the assumptions you claim have been made, or you are just assuming that's how science works (in which case you would be wrong).
For one thing, if there are no assumptions, then all data was directly observed and recorded without interpretation. According to the article itself, that is not the case, therefore assumptions are involved.
Are you sure YOU understand science?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, since you still think I was referring to the research, rather than the ARTICLE, as I have plainly stated at least twice. I have not been referring to the research, since there are no links to the research in the article.
Do you have any links to the research? Oh, that's right, I asked that before, and you've already ignored the request twice.