Frankly7

Well of course but I'm looking for an answer to the claim and/or evidence that Australopithecus and Homo are not genetically similar enough to be connected.

Sort of. I think the goal of the article is to show that members of Homo are basically humans and members of Australopithecus are basically apes, and that they aren't similar enough to be linked. There is a significant amount of criticizing classifications like you're saying (among other things) but I think that's the further point it's supposed to support.

There are a lot of places but probably most of all where it talks about A. afarensis/africanus fossils being apes and not intermediate links. The paper uses many references so I imagine evaluating it would involve finding any ways in which it misinterprets evidence, leaves out evidence, or jumps to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. I'm just not equipped to do that as a non-biologist.

Fair enough but I'm not going to tell him that. I'm interested to see exactly where the article goes wrong.

Hi, I'm a believer in theistic evolution, and I was talking with a creationist online who linked me this article: http://kolbecenter.org/fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon/ There is a lot of detailed and referenced information in it and I was wondering if anyone here who is more familiar with the topic of hominid evolution might have thoughts on it.