"There may have been times when one early hominid species evolved into another one without branching off into multiple species," White says.
I'm not sure how anyone could substantiate that without having perfect knowledge of the record.
"Since Ar. ramidus and Au. anamensis lived in the same place and negotiated comparable habitats, it's plausible that the earlier hominid evolved directly into the later one,"
...
"Australopithecus evolved increasingly larger jaws and teeth from one species to the next with minimal or no evolutionary branching, Walker proposes."
I'm not sure what he's arguing here. Maybe I'm missing the point (or something) ...
So A. anamensis branches from Ar. ramidus. Then anamensis survives and ramidus goes extinct.
-- or --
A. anamensis derived from Ar. ramidus. The branch anamensis becomes the trunk. No more ramidus?
I don't see what is different from the current understanding.
Or is he arguing that no ramidus were left because they all mutated to anamensis?
placemarker ping
Well the current "understanding" has some dashed lines. Perhaps they are simply saying some slight revision is in order, as is usually the case when new info is found. This is not Earth shattering stuff, just another nail in the Creo coffin, which by now is almost all nails.
Only for Muslims, and then only one month a year.