Yeah, they really should tone down statements based on what is already known about the situation prevailing when the dead guy was still alive.
Heck - many scientists these days can't recognize the situation prevailing around them. Other than relics and partial bones, they might be a wee uncertain about what was going on 170K+ years ago. I don't dispute that he was likely a nomad hunter, I dispute someone looking at a partial skull shard and making a definitive statement.
Yes, I am a Creationist, but I don't arbitrarily discount that some changes have occured; I just doubt the definitive statements that become different definitive statements as more is unearthed. If they stop treating it as a scientific Law, and stick to the Theory with the caveat that they are still gathering data, I find it as interesting as the next guy.
Sarcastic remarks shouldn't be part of an argument from a serious backer of a theory - look at the Global Warming debacle and how they go about "convincing" us by saying deniers are racist, dusting obvious hoaxes under the rug and acting as if there are no anomalies...