arm/finger is panin not Orrorin Orrorin Stonethrower

If by that you mean were there any rocks in the area, then the answer is yes. It was discovered on Earth's surface, after all. If you mean something more specific, then you'll have to spell it out. Why would logic suggest this? About 2,500 km according to the abstract of Sahaelanthropus. That's roughly 1,550 miles. I can assure you that if all the material from Lukeino represents a single species, and all the material described as Sahaelanthropus represents a single species, that we'd be talking about different species here. It's never positive, species designations for fossils you know, but there is a lot of differences between their teeth. It's safe for you to assume for now that they are two different species. Later you can read more about their morphology and make an informed decision.

This is circular logic. Try and follow me here. You claim that man is A)a stonethrower and more carnivorous than other apes. But those aren't two independent features. They are absolutely linked in your hypothesis. We are more carnivorous only because of stonethrowing according to your model. Right? Now keep that in mind. Now you claim that if our increased meat-eating is linked to stonethrowing, then any features related to meat-eating must also be linked to stonethrowing. That's perfectly acceptable logic, obvious as it is. Thus we can detect stonethrowing, at least suggest it, by detecting those traits in fossil hominins. Now, you define meat-eating dental traits as any dental trait which is shared by all modern humans to the exclusion of all modern apes. Thus any human traits of a fossil hominin are evidence of meateating. We detect a hominin (that is, a species more closely related to us than any living species) by looking at its features and seeing if they share derived features with human bones. Thus anything we identify as a human remain will automatically be classified as a meat-eater by your standards (because the criteria for determing its status as a hominin and its status as a meat-eater are exactly identical: it looks more like a human than an ape). Thus, every fossil that we identify as a human ancestor will automatically be classified as a stonethrower (because it has to be classified as a meateater for reasons described above, and because you define stonethrowers by meateating morphology). It is absolutely impossible to uncover a fossil hominin which could falsify your hypothesis, because its impossible to classify anything as a hominin without your criteria judging it as a stonethrower. And according to the philosiphy of science, which dictates how science operates, any theory which makes predictions which can't possibly be falsified are unscientific since it's impossible to validate a theory if it isn't possible to falsify Thus, if you stick with this criteria, your hypothesis falls off the face of science, as it can't possibly prove anything. It's just a hamster wheel. Get what I mean when I say you're making circular arguments now? I'm afraid I can't spell it out any simpler without insulting both of our intelligence. Again, circular argument. See the explanation offered above. With this criteria every *imaginable* fossil hominin would support your hypothesis, thus making it unflasifallible. It's really impossible to tell unless we had a single individual which combined dental remains (type specimen of tugenesis) and postcrania (for the Lukeino humerus). Nor is it neccesarry. Like I explained you needn't bother trying to prove they are different specimens, the burden isn't yours. Whoa? Do you even know what a split means? What actual event causes them? Its called speciation. Know what that means? It has absolutely nothing to do with particular behaviour. The acquisition of a feature or behaviour doesn't cause a split, splits just prevent gene flow from spreading any new behaviours between two taxa. How did you reach that conclusion? How do you know? No one can claim tyo even have a reasonable guess at the charectoristics of early panins, as we know exactly zippo of them outside the two living species (unless some of the earlier material which is suggested to belong to hominins is actually on the other side of the fence, which is my personal opinion... but not a very popular one). They could have been *extremely* difficult prey. We don't know. Best not make fools of ourselves guessing unless we hav damn good reason. Curved too much to be Orrorin? How the hell do you determine the shape of a creatures fingers from its molars alone? What would make it suitable for stonethrowing? Give me actual anatomical features, not some circular argument. No, there's no metric measurement for phalanx curvature. That is, there's no number that someone can come up using anatomy and geometry to absolutely tell you that they are definatly different. I can tell you that from what I've seen of them that if they happened to both be the same finger (that is, same bone from the same hand) that I couldn't tell them apart. That's thesame conclusion practically everyone's made on Lucy's fingers (in addition to several other features suggesting she was at least partially arboreal). Nope. There's no degree involved. Physical anthropologists simply see whether they're curved or not. There isn't