Replies

If the fossils of a rhesus were older than the fossils of the chimp, and there were no human or chimp fossils as old as the rhesus fossils, why would that be an invalid conclusion?

I hope you won't think I'm dodging your question when I say that's exactly my point.

We know that we didn't evolve from chimps...but what if we didn't?

For all we know, Australopitheucs currently occupies the same role in real evolutionary theory that the chimp occupied in my fanciful scenario. Maybe they just say she's an ancestor because there must be one at about that spot.

I hope you won't think I'm dodging your question when I say that's exactly my point.

We know that we didn't evolve from chimps...but what if we didn't?

But we know that we didn't evolve from chimps because chimps are around today and we don't have chimp fossils from as far back as we have fossils from the non-chimp, human branch. You're creating a scenario with no chimps around today, and then judging its validity based on what we know from chimps being around today. It's self-contradictory.

Besides, from what I've read, australopithecus isn't considered an "ancestor" in the sense that there's a direct line of descent from them to us. (I called them "transitional.") Rather, they're a dead twig on the same branch we're on. If there are no bipedal apes at 6 MYA, and on-their-way-to-bipedal apes (and humanlike hands et al.) at 3 MYA, and fully bipedal apes with big brains at 1 MYA, and now us, I don't see any problem calling those other ones "transitional," even if they're not direct ancestors.