Uh huh. I quoted from the article in phys.org and didn't make it up.
I did not say you made anything up. You cited the layman's article, and your questions have been answered in the two technical articles concerning what needed to change and why.mes the time frame of bipedal evolution may take longer than previously thought.
As far as the question of the common ancestors of primates that has been addressed many many times. but of course you would not consider any scientific explanations, because you consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority as is. There are many intermediates in the development of bipedal evolution.
This an interesting source that address much of the research into the bipedal evolution. whic leads to common ancestors of today's primates.
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion
W E H Harcourt-Smith1 and
L C Aiello2
Conclusions
Recent discoveries of taxa such as
Kenyanthropus platyops,
Sahelanthropus tchadensis,
Orrorin tugenensis and
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba suggest a far wider degree of taxonomic diversity in the African fossil hominin record than had previously been thought (
Fig. 1) (
Haile-Selassie, 2001;
Leakey et al. 2001;
Senut et al. 2001;
Brunet et al. 2002;
Wood, 2002). At present, craniodental remains almost exclusively support the evidence for this diversity. Based on this inferred diversity and supported by the existing evidence for postcranial diversity, it is not unreasonable to assume that there was also a considerable degree of locomotor diversity in the early hominins. As has been shown, the prevailing view in the earlier literature on the evolution of bipedalism has been a particularly linear one, with the usual pattern being a neat series of steps from arboreal quadruped to obligate biped. As more fossil evidence accumulated, some researchers entertained the possibility of locomotor diversity in contemporary early hominins (e.g.
Napier, 1964), but this view was far from prevalent. Furthermore, many of the more recent studies, informed by the growing collection of hominin postcranial fossils, have focused on the degree to which particular skeletal elements imply one type of locomotion or another.
The central point is that contemporary fossil taxa may well have been mosaic in their adaptations, but, critically, may have been mosaic in different ways to each other. This has recently been shown to be the case for the feet of
A. afarensis and the new and similarly aged
A. africanus specimen ‘Little Foot’ (
Harcourt-Smith, 2002). Further analyses of other skeletal elements are needed to reinforce this interpretation. If correct, this would imply that there was more locomotor diversity in the fossil record than has been suggested, and raises questions over whether there was a single origin for bipedalism or not. At the very least, if bipedalism appeared only once in the hominin radiation and is therefore monophyletic, such evidence would suggest that there were multiple evolutionary pathways responding to that selection pressure. It is currently difficult to determine primitive from derived morphologies in the hominins because of the problem of homoplasy and resulting phylogenetic uncertainty. Although perhaps controversial, it is important that when considering such a unique adaptation as bipedalism, we do not allow that uniqueness to imply that there was ever only one successful mode of bipedalism in our hominin ancestry. In light of the richness of recent findings in the hominin fossil record, it is important to ask the question of whether the evolution of bipedalism was a more complex affair than has previously been suggested.