[gregn]

What bothers me is that nowhere in both articles I read do they once mention: "what if it wasn't what we are postulating it is." That tact of reasoning is never explored. The entirety of their position is foregone conclusion. I'm not saying they are wrong or right, but first of all, it seems entirely unlikely due to everything we already know. Second of all there are no human remains, just some rocks that _kind_of_ resemble tools and some broken bones that they can date. It is closer to flight of fantasy that proven fact. I wish they would approach it as such while chasing their hypothesis. I would feel much easier about it. But I suppose people who don't brandish brazen egos are much less likely to get the front-page stories.....

[acdha]

The questioning you claim to be looking for starts in the second paragraph of the NPR piece and continues throughout the article. Trying reading it through and counting each time one of the scientists quoted says something like “if true”, “it's an outlier”, etc. or talks about the additional evidence they'd like to see or challenges yet to be explained.