Agreed, but last time I read about it, they were having trouble dating the remains.
Seems some of the usual dating techniques don't work in this particular circumstance.
Indeed, according to Wackypedia, those remains still are not dated.
That means the age of 2.8 million years is strictly educated guess-work based on similar remains found elsewhere which could be dated.
So, at some point they will find a reliable method for dating these bones, and then we'll learn they were not 2.8 million years, but rather "x.y" years old.
Then many will have a field day claiming, "see, see, science is worthless".
Not science itself, but a lot of science writers seem to be taken from goats of their class.
