[valkyry1]

The actual truth is that this thing could be just another extinct ape, that's all. With only two examples there is no way to tell. But you have already accepted it as fitting into your preconceived model, the one that explains everything for you. That is hardly science. But plenty of other people have their doubts because it does not fit fit their preconceptions on the ancestor of Homo. One such person is this anthropologist.

For example, A. sediba's arms are too long—too apelike—and the species isn't as well adapted for upright walking as some scientists expect the direct ancestor to the first humans to be, Wood said.

Also, at 1.95 to 1.78 million years old, the A. sediba fossils simply aren't old enough to represent an ancestor to Homo, said anthropologist Brian Richmond, also of George Washington University. (Explore a prehistoric time line.)

"It's hard to argue this is the ancestor of Homo when it's occurring much later than the earliest members of the genus Homo by half a million years," Richmond said, referring to an early fossil of H. habilis that dates back to 2.3 million years ago.

 

[allmendream]

The anthropologist is not doubting that it is OF the line of descent that led to humans, just if it is IN the line of descent.

Humans are, zoologically speaking, apes. The two closest related apes are humans and chimps.

It could be just another extinct BIPEDAL ape.

Evolutionary science has a model that explains where bipedal apes came from.

Creationism has nothing.