[Coyoteman]

Also, J, K and L show Neanderthal man. Why would they be on a chart of the family tree of man?

That is not a relationship chart, but rather a mug book. It shows a lot of the main fossils, in relation to modern chimp and modern human, but it does not imply any specific relationship between adjacent fossils.

This chart from a few years ago attempts to show relationships:

http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Tribune7]

That is not a relationship chart, but rather a mug book. It shows a lot of the main fossils, in relation to modern chimp and modern human, but it does not imply any specific relationship between adjacent fossils.

TalkOrigins calls them transitional fossils

If it doesn't imply a specific relationship why put the chimp in A? If it were just a mug book why not put the chimp next to modern human and keep chronological consistency?

The chart you posted shows the latest thinking. In other words, VBS is wrong that no one denies Australopithecus to be an ancestor of man.

[labette]

I have a breif inquiry also regarding post #205. More specifically, the link you furnished at the end of the post.
From the link, underlined by me:

" Traditional (radiocarbon) dating results had caused stagnation in our understanding of modern human evolution. The introduction of more advanced dating methods led to significant revisions, which have been backed up by DNA analyses. These showed that modern humans probably evolved in Africa around 200,000 years (e.g. Ingman et al. 2000) and that an eastward migration of modern humans took place well before the population of Europe (e.g., Hedges 2000). This means that the aboriginal peoples are more ancient in the Australian landscape than Europeans are in Europe. The emerging migration patterns of modern humans are summarised in Fig. 11."

Curious, are the DNA analyses referring to Berkeley's "Mitochondrial Eve"?