These are the faces of our ancestors, the ancient hominid cousins of humanity. Before us, there was them. They weren't quite human, but they were so like us.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis: 6.8 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis: 3.2 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus: 2.5 million years ago
Paranthropus aethiopicus: 2.5 million years ago
Paranthropus boisei: 1.8 million years ago
Homo rudolfensis: 1.8 million years ago
Homo ergaster: 1.3 million years ago
Homo heidelbergensis: 500,000 years ago
Homo neanderthalensis: 600,000 to 350,000 years ago
Homo floresiensis (The Hobbit): 30,000 years ago
And the only hominid not gone extinct (at least not yet), Homo sapiens: 200,000 years ago
Bible study has hollowed out the thinking regions of Robertson's skull.
In any case if this finding is excepted a lot of "Homo" species will be merged into (probably) ergaster.
That's interesting. Do you have a link to the source of that information? This is what I meant earlier when I said the 'tree' varies depending on who draws it and as new information comes to light.
Take the (obviously elderly) face of the Neanderthal. This was an early fossil find which indicated a curved spine and a stooped walking posture, so the thought initially was that all Neanderthals walked hunched over. Later it was revealed the specimen in question was hunched because of advanced years: they had found a stooped elderly man (who likely was taken good care of for many years by his fellows).
I'm not surprised that some religious apologists point to errors like Neanderthal (or hoaxes like Piltdown) as 'evidence' that the underlying science is faulty. Apparently, they see no irony in that the same science is what discovers error or fraud, and corrects it accordingly. Otherwise, how would they know about it?
I've mostly been hearing about this verbally (the whole human evolution subject is a hobby of a friend of mine, so he keeps me posted; the disadvantage being what I repeat ends up being hearsay). But a fairly quick Google gives me this:
I skimmed it and it seems to be highlighting the issue. Anyhow, it in turn points to this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326.abstract which is a little more of a primary source.
And yes your point about science also discovering and correcting the frauds but not being given credit for that is a solid one.
When I took my year of anthropology, early 80's, I was a little concerned about 'sampling'. Now it appears the epigenetic effects might also be very important. I recently watched a documentary that mentioned possible environmental causing birth defects even in rather 'natural' contexts.
These guys are not extinct, that's just wishful thinking.
They're all alive and well and elected to South Africa's Parliament.