Yet, every 'fossil watcher' knows that the individuals in that line-up change from time to time. That line-up has changed considerably in the last ten years. The particular line-up that Groves suggests is not the line-up accepted by all evolutionists. The fossils involved and the dates ascribed to them are subjectively determined and are constantly subject to change.The second line of evidence regarding Australopithecus ramidus is its date, 4.4 million years ago. that the discoverers were able to determine the exact places from which these fossils had eroded.
This line of evidence is linked to the first one because Australopithecus ramidus gets its prominence by being the last one in that graded series, being older than Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis).
It thus extends human ancestry farther back in time. ('Hominid' is an evolutionary term referring to all fossil individuals who are believed to be direct human ancestors, including the australopithecines, especially those believed to have walked erect.) It is universally understood by evolutionists that the value of a fossil to their claims is in direct proportion to its ability to be accurately dated.
 In other words, an estimate was made of what the date should be based on the evolutionary development of similar fauna found elsewhere.
This situation appears to be similar to the tortured ten year attempt to date the famous fossil skull, KNM-ER 1470, discovered by Richard Leakey in northern Kenya.
The second gap, known as the hominid gap, extends from 14 to 4.5 million years ago.
This second period is equally critical for evolutionary theory because it is the time when the ancestors of the australopithecine and human group were allegedly diverging from the ancestors of the African apes, especially the chimpanzees.This fact, in itself, would seem to place a degree of contingency on the dating of these fossils.In a letter to Nature regarding the date of 4.4 million years ago,  John Kappelman (University of Texas, Austin) and John Fleagle (State University of New York, Sunny Brook) speak of the difficulty of both radiometric and palaeomagnetic dating in that area of Ethiopia, and demonstrate that the age of Australopithecus ramidus may have been overestimated by as much as 0.5 million years ago.The ones that are slightly younger than ramidus are slightly more human like; those that are younger still are more human like still, and so on.It's a graded series from then to now.”  Groves cites the various fossil categories that make up the progression from modern humans back to Australopithecus ramidus In this progression he lists the Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, A Australopithecus africanus, A Australopithecus afarensis, and finally Ardipithecus ramidus.This demands that the geological context of the fossil be established beyond question.