This period is also devoid of any relevant fossil material, except for a few fossil scraps too fragmentary for diagnosis.
Thus, the recent news that the hominid 'missing link' has been discovered was greeted with great exuberance by the evolutionist community.
 Time magazine writes: 'Bones from the Ethiopian desert prove that human ancestors walked the Earth 4.4 million years ago'  Newsweek states: 'Ramidus confirms once and for all that the common ancestor lived just a little more than 4.4 million years ago.'  The facts themselves do not warrant the certainty found in the popular press.
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.
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.
The fossil discovery is made up of associated and isolated adult teeth, a child's mandible fragment, two partial cranial bases, and seven fragments from a left arm.
These 17 fragments were found in association with other primate and vertebrate fossils, Radioisotopic dating, geochemical analysis, and biochronological considerations are said to suggest a date of 4.4 million years ago.
One senses a note of caution in the heading of the Nature article: 'The antiquity and primitive morphology of Australopithecus ramidus suggests that it represents a long-sought potential root species for the Hominidae'  The popular press has not reflected that caution.
Colin Groves (Australian National University) said in The Canberra Times: “…the missing link is no longer missing”.
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.
 In other words, an estimate was made of what the date should be based on the evolutionary development of similar fauna found elsewhere.