Greetings
Give thanks for the info.

It always amazes me how they can come up with a composite picture of what something looked like by finding skeletons. How do they know how much hair it had, what color it was, or what its function was, especially if the skeleton was not fully intact?

Why would a "hominid" have adaptations for tree living and ground living at the same time? It would seem that the body adaptations needed for those environments would contrast with each other distinctly. I would think the adaptation that makes them able to eat, survive, and reproduce would take precedent over the other. These scientists make it seem that they were equally as competent in both environments.

If no dna was found, how can they be sure that the creature is in the homo family? There are animals in nature that look alike but are very distinct genetically.

Could it be possible that the creature is from a seperate and distinct family/genepool?

It seems that they try to tie everything to a human connection as if we are the only intelligent life in the universe, let alone planet.

We are so human-centered in our thinking.

When we begin to realeyes that time is not linear nor mono-dimensional, then I think we will have a better overstanding of how things evolve. There is no real difference between space and time. If space is said to be multidimensional, then so would time.

That would also imply that evolution, which is dependent on space and time, would not be linear either.

Scientist tend to find things and have them fit into their theory instead of finding things and developing a theory based on the evidence, which is a total contradiction of science.

Antropologist do plenty of "reverse engineering".

Peace