So they were humans who were not quite "anatomically modern". It's hardly the big problem you make it out to be:
I find this story very hard to believe. It sounds like another Piltdown Man hoax. If this is true, EVERY theory of human evolution is out the window.
Complete nonsense. It's perfectly compatible with the *current* theory of human evolution.
The only changes would be to theories of human *migration* (i.e., when exactly humans arrived at particular locations).
And even so, it might just be a minor adjustment, not a major revision. If a small wave of humans arrived in the California area that far back, but couldn't make a go of it and died off, then later the major human migration which populated the American continents arrived at the time currently described in the history books, it wouldn't be a big change, just a footnote.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but my reaction was to the claim in the article that "Humans" populated CA 200,000 years ago. All "Homos" are not "Homo Sapiens". When I saw "Humans", I assumed "Homo Sapiens". Indeed, you would agree that a claims that Homo Sapiens lived there for that period, it would pre-date Homo Sapiens in Africa, and indeed, be revolutonary.
If you are takling about other types of Homos, then I would agee with you - its a footnote, and an interesting question of how they got here, what happened to them and why, and why there are no fossil remains.
Regarding evolution, I agree that much of it, like intra-spacies evoluton, is hard fact. Inter-species evoluton is a different matter, and is fair game for serious debate.
Well put. I'd add that the habitation of humans has been on what is now the continental shelf (during major glaciations) for long periods of time during the past two million years.