No, this is what you "said": "In related news from an equally reliable source:"
The original source was the "Seed" article which contains the fairytale.
You continually assert that because someone disagrees with your viewpoint that they don't understand science. Well, something has to be able to undermine TToE or it is not science, by definition. On top of that, it was a comment that was made by the researcher/author during the interview which seems to undermine TToE(but a just-so story comes to the "rescue" in a comment following it), not a comment made by the article's author. The undermining comment being "It’s related to one of the basic things that came out of our research: Why do children exist at all? It doesn’t make tremendous evolutionary sense to have these creatures that can’t even keep themselves alive and require an enormous investment of time on the part of adults. That period of dependence is longer for us than it is for any other species, and historically that period has become longer and longer.
And specious is the act of making up just-so stories to justify a conclusion. Especially when that conclusion involves defining childhood(children) as useless. Do you think children are useless?
>>No, this is what you “said”: “In related news from an equally reliable source:”<<
Yes, as opposed to people who purposely misread my post.
>>You continually assert that because someone disagrees with your viewpoint that they don’t understand science. Well, something has to be able to undermine TToE or it is not science, by definition. <<
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?
>>On top of that, it was a comment that was made by the researcher/author during the interview which seems to undermine TToE(but a just-so story comes to the “rescue” in a comment following it), not a comment made by the article’s author. <<
Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.
>>The undermining comment being “It’s related to one of the basic things that came out of our research: Why do children exist at all? It doesn’t make tremendous evolutionary sense to have these creatures that can’t even keep themselves alive and require an enormous investment of time on the part of adults. That period of dependence is longer for us than it is for any other species, and historically that period has become longer and longer. <<
How silly is that comment. The progression of lengthening childhood is a sociological phenomenon, not a physical one. The fact we have seen it in a few hundred years — faster than a blink of an eye in terms of evolution — means that it has nothing to do with evolution at all. As I said, anyone with the tiniest passing knowledge of science should be able to come to this conclusion. I guess someone had to help connect the dots.