Did they find the talking monkeys??????
Not sure what you are saying here. Humans were probably the first animal to speak.
They are part of a very long line of evolution that goes back about 20 million years.
I call it pseudoscience.
Look at your chart and see how very little actual bones are there and then they fill in the rest.
Rather than gathering facts, they take fragments and turn them into our ancestors.
The facts show, there are no living intermediates – all of the supposed ancestors of man have died out – they are extinct. Therefore it is the task of “science” to reconstruct these alleged ancestors. We have monkeys and we have humans in the world today – but we don’t have the living relatives between. It is the responsibility, therefore, of “science,” to fill in the gaps.
This is where it becomes interesting. Especially for people who are not so easily convinced that the “story of our origins” is “good science.” Good science must be based on good observations that provide sound conclusions.
When I see a painting, or a mode,l or the chart you put up, of an alleged ancestor that is based on a fragment of a jaw, a toe bone, or a footprint that looks like modern humans, I wonder how scientific this “story” really is. Is it possible a story is being told that is based on biased assumptions in order to provide evidence that isn’t evidence at all?
Many people question this.