Missing Link?

It seems like at least once a year, archeologists and scientists find the ever elusive "Missing Link" to the human evolutionary chain.

The latest find is Ardi.

Followers of the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins are I'm sure rejoicing in the streets as they have once again "proved" the falsehood that is the Christian Bible.

I sent the article to the smartest person I know to get his thoughts on the matter. His thoughts are below:

OK. I read it, and just based on the information in this article I think the find is compromised in any number of ways. For example:

1. One statement indicates that Ardi walked upright, not on her knuckles, followed by a later statement indicating that Ardi's palm/finger structure would have been useful for supporting the weight of her torso. Why does that matter? It matters because it betrays the fact that the scientists know both consciously and intuitively that Ardi walked on all fours, thus the reason she would need to be able to support the weight of her torso by using her hands.
2. The find was dated using radiometric and geologic dating, both of which have suspect methodologies, which is why historical archaeologists have reverted back to comparative strata and comprehensive dating methodologies in addition to radiometrics and geology.
3. The find was discovered in a mixed find area, meaning there were a multitude of fossilized remains and bone fragments from a variety of animal types. Historically in finds like these, it has proven exceptionally difficult to confirm with a high degree of accuracy which of the various animal types particular fragments belong to, and scientists have often ended up mistakenly putting a bone fragment from one animal alongside another and claiming that it's a transitional species. It's not like they found the full skeletal remains here. You'll notice that they say they found 125 fragments of bone, not 125 bones, and certainly not a complete skeleton.
   
4. You'll also notice that they are at least being intellectually honest to some degree by not categorizing the find as a member of the genus homo. They instead categorize it as Ardipithecus. Why do you think that is? It's because the scientists know that this isn't a person. It can't be honestly classified in the genus homo, so in order to retain some degree of intellectual honesty they have to categorize it as something else. This ultimately forces the scientists to admit that while this might be "something pretty close" to the last common ancestor between humans and apes (in their opinion) it's not the last common ancestor. They can't honestly make that claim.
   
5. You get out what you put in. At the outset you can tell that the scientists have a naturalistic starting point. They're beginning with the presupposition that Darwinian Evolution is fact, and filtering all the data from their find through that point of view. That's not an intellectually honest or fair process. The data should lead to a conclusion, not a conclusion leading the data. In the end, poor presuppositions on the font end have produced poor results on the back end. The scientists can't even use this science to support the presupposition that Darwinian evolution is fact because their own methodology (even with the presupposition) led to the conclusion that this isn't a human.