To think that we have trouble identifying offspring of people who lived 100 years ago, or even still living. If we could be sure we had all the evidence even though it only covers a coffeetable we could devise a coherent hypothesis. But we have barely begun to find evidence and every new find seems to force a change in the hypothesis rather than confirm the hypothesis. We're still early in the investigation.
Exactly! Paleoanthropology is such a small and distinct field of study that most people have not the training nor the knowledge to understand wether the scientists are talking "crazy" or not. These folks get to dictate the "evolution of man" to the world at will, and most people buy it "hook, line, and sinker". Is there room for "experts" in this world? Of course! But everything "scientific" should be questioned and the orthodoxy here that cannot, nor will not be questioned, is this: man evolved to his current form from something less complex in the manner paleoanthropoligists have dictated. Any evidence pointing otherwise has been rejected. At least it's starting to look like the field is taking on a bit of "intellectual honesty" - questioning orthodoxy gets you closer to the truth every time, even if your questioning eventually agrees with said orthodoxy.