Fair enough - but when I started the thread it was pure 'Science only' as originally categorised. I am not wholly responsible for how threads may evolve over time.
I have just submitted a further comment as follows, after the editor displayed and responded to my latest comments:
"I accept much of what you say in your last comment. I perhaps should have been clearer in my second comment - when I wrote "untrue" I was referring to your claim "You can only infer it implies something about human evolution if you already believe in human evolution — a circular argument". I was inferring originally that 'primate evolution' (if it has occurred) by definition includes human evolution even if that specific phrase was not used in the paper (which I've not read).
If I appeared to you to somehow conflate the classification of humans as primates with a discussion of 'human evolution', that was not my intention - rather I was thinking of the reports eg on BBC TV where they showed a linear divergence many millions of years ago into the tarsiiform and anthropoid primate clades, with this particular species tentatively included within the former - whereas humans belong within the larger latter clade (but all the species involved, whether extant or extinct and which are thought to have evolved over time, are primates).
It is up to you whether you publish this comment, which I'm posting at the BCSE community forum." http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primat ... mment-3166