Interesting read, Brian. You do find some good food for thought.
Interesting to see the resistance of the scientific periodicals in publishing this. Though what might be more interesting is further investigation of the dating.
Well, it's in a periodical, as it's in the New Scientist. ;-) Which, as you can tell from the article title, is more journalistic than truly scientific in nature. A little too sensational. The findings do not suggest that title at all - only show that there is geological evidence which needs further research, and may (only may!) give reason to re-evaluate some of what we know.
Where it's not getting as much traction is in academic research journals. They're much more cautious, due to a couple of poorly researched claims in the past, and often ask for more research or rewrites before publishing. It's understandable; they have to keep their reputations impeccable and, due to the generally low budgets many journals have, there is stiff competition for publication. Plus, it takes time to properly peer review findings (the animal feed research I assisted on took six months between being finished and being published).
Looking at the paper in the Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, it is the basis for more research, rather than presenting any findings. This could be convergent evolution, with the species dying out and leaving no descendants; it could be inconsistent dating (we all make mistakes); or it could be something new, giving us another window on our evolution. We already have firm evidence that modern humans descended from more than one species of hominin.
