Really? Well what happened here then?
Prominently displayed in the center of page 59 of the Time article is a tiny fragment of a toe bone. Lemonick and Dorfman wrote: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.”
I suspect either an over enthusiastic researcher or a mistaken journalist.
That doesn't change the fact that the two discoverers of the initial fossil do not represent all evolutionary scientists. There has been doubt among other scientists, not about whether the bone is from a bipedal primate, but whether the toe belongs to kadabba. The recently found almost complete fossil will likely settle the issue one way or the other. If the toe turns out to belong to kabadda and the leg attachment points verify a bipedal gait then the rest of scientists will be more accepting.
Anti-evolutionist writers will frequently search out overly enthusiastic news articles which are not always accurate in their information and claim the found article represents all scientists in the applicable fields.
Contrary to what those highly biased anti-evolution authors would like you to believe, most new discoveries are not accepted 'out of the box' by the majority of scientists. As a rule, most discoveries are subject to rigorous examination and discussion and most need more research before a consensus is reached. This is the case with all three of the most recent hominid finds.