As the researchers from UCL and GW put it, “Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”9which seems to imply that Collard and Wood are shaky on the whole idea of humans evolving from non-humans. It also ends in three dots, which is a bad sign in creationist quoting. What exactly are these "hypotheses [plural noted] of ancestry?"
A Yahoo on this text produced one other site, also creationist, with exactly the same words and ellipsis. Obviously not a coincidence. Somebody quoted it in just the form noted. Somebody else liked the effect and borrowed the same snippet. A new one makes it way into the creationist quote-mining pipeline. IOW, red-flag time!
Happily, I found the original Collard and Wood paper:
The upsurge in paleoanthropological field research over the past quarter century has resulted in the recognition of many new hominin species, including Australopithecus afarensis (1), Paranthropus aethiopicus (2), Ardipithecus ramidus (3, 4), Aus-tralopithecus anamensis (5), Australopithecus bahrelghazali (6), Homo antecessor (7), and Australopithecus garhi (8). This has led to commensurate interest in the generation of reliable hypoth-eses about human phylogeny (8–14). Without a reliable phylog-eny, little confidence can be placed in hypotheses of ancestry, or in scenarios linking events in human evolution with environ-mental and ecological influences. However, the phylogenetic relationships of the dozen, or so, species whose remains comprise the hominin fossil record are far from certain. Despite, in paleontological terms, a relative abundance of fossil evidence, cladistic analyses of the hominins have so far yielded conflicting and weakly supported hypotheses of relationships (9–14, 15, 16).The above quote is not from the conclusion of the paper, but it's opening paragraph. The "hypotheses of ancestry" are precise lineages of "this fossil is the clear descendant of this one but not that one, which is a great-uncle ..."
We already knew that it is hard to tell exactly what is descended from what. Arguments of this sort fill the journals, but the people making them are not arguing whether evolution has occurred. They're arguing over who's the daddy. That's what the paragraph above is saying exactly. We already know that we don't know the exact ancestral trees.
The study itself reveals that a source of the confusion may be that some of the cladistic tools in common use are error-prone when applied to primates and makes suggestions for increasing accuracy. It does not question that modern humans have a non-modern human ancestry. The recommendations include such shocking notions as exploiting post-cranial data where available and paying attention to time/stratigraphy.
Rana's characterization is an overspun, far too selective reading. Rana lobbies to show that Collard and Wood have somehow proven that evolution didn't happen (" ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm). This does not follow at all and is false. The preponderance of evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring does not depend upon the establishment of precise lineages within hominids or even primates.
As for you, you're wishing away the checkmate you saw earlier. Against yet another new, real, transitional fossil find, you made a brave show, then ran back to your favorite creo site and snatched up an FAQ crucifix to brandish at the vampires. I wasn't holding my breath on you facing it, of course.