Don't be disingenuous, you're not very good at it.
[...common lineage of humans and other primates...]
You don't even have proof of a transitional!
Sure we do (leaving aside a quibble about your sloppy use of the word "proof" in a scientific context).
A study that throws a wrench into your common lineage fairy tale.
If it's a "fairy tale", how do you explain, say, shared endogenous retroviruses, among dozens of other lines of clear evidence of common lineage? Oh, right, you can't. Perhaps you're the one spreading fairy tales.
If you don't have homo erectus, then your theory is in big trouble.
How do you figure that? That would still leave quite a few other transitionals along the chain.
You need that transitional!
No we don't, but your article doesn't raise any problems anyway.
From the article: The results challenge the assumption that human evolution followed a path from a chimplike ancestor to a transitionary Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens, suggesting instead that chimpanzees have more in common developmentally with Homo erectus and that modern humans are the "out-group."
Note the word "developmentally". Keep reading it until its significance sinks in. The article is not challenging the transitional nature of Homo erectus, as you are misreading it as.
I've asked you before, and now I must ask you again -- if you don't know anything about science, please stop trying to talk about it. I have better things to do than waste more of my time correcting your many misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Please leave analysis of articles like this to people who have a sufficient background to understand them and not make elementary errors like you so often do, causing you to go leaping off making wild and incorrect conclusions.
For the lurkers, information on early man that the Doc won't tell you can be found here.
"Doc" won't tell you those things, because "Doc" doesn't like spreading misrepresentations and falsehoods like the ones found at that site -- although you apparently have no such qualms.
I'm beginning to wonder.
I posted a science article along with some facts relating to the study. It was the Doc that came along and derailed my thread. Those facts again in case you missed them:
Until now, Alu DNA repeats have been considered "junk dna." The study shows key differences between humans and other primates. The finding is counter to natural selection.
Have a nice day.
Covered here (Prediction#21, pg.76):
Dozens of lines of clear evidence, you say? Do tell.