> An analysis also needs to start by testing a null hypothesis, not deciding on the conclusion and setting out to "prove" it.

> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.

> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.

I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.

Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding.

The original paper is just garbage

Kudos to eLife for pioneering publishing peer review along with paper.

Appreciate the note to check peer reviews, it certainly does cast these findings in a new light.

Tried reading the paper and it was surprisingly hard to understand, probably because I don't know anything about the field. That said, I think the critiques make sense. Still, both the peer review and the response in the articles seem so extreme, I wonder if there is something else going on here. Is there some political or ideological divide in this field?