Famousdebater:
The paper I showed you focused on the fact that there was little similarities in the motifs, which would be fundamental evidence for fusion. Your paper quietly states this as well, though not going as far as to say that there was no evidence for fusion:
These duplications are not present in contemporary humans, potentially due to subsequent loss in the ancestral lineage.
Much of the article displayed the similarities between chimpanzees and gorillas, which is what I would expect. This also goes back to
@BioHazard
's points. The scientist who wrote the paper made a baseless assumption about the disappearance of some similarities only because it fit into their model, which is understandable, but an assumption nonetheless.
I'm probably the person next to you.
