[taxesareforever]

"Whether or not it's a human ancestor is probably unimportant as far as the skull is concerned," Wolpoff said. "But it's very important in trying to understand where humans come from. It's the first relative we've had of the earliest hominid, or something related to it, but it's not a hominid at all."

What kind of doublespeak is this? At the end of this quote he says, "but it's not a hominid at all." The first sentence of the article starts out, "The earliest known hominid fossil, Sounds to me like they really don't want to discount evolution of man from apes even though everything points to no connection.

[RobbyS]

They assume the connection. The fossil record is so fragmentary and probably will remain so. They have no fossils of early chimps? That I didn't know. If human evolution took place, it might be in a way unimagined so far. IAC, they just don't know.