Actually, I’m a HS Science teacher who advocates and defends “evolution” at every turn. However, this article struck me as suspect from several directions: 1. Either something was lost in the translation, or it was poorly written to begin with. Not convincing. 2. The location of the site was in European Georgia (part of the late USSR and home of J. Stalin and N. Krushchev. Folks there don’t have a strong tradition of scientific discipline. 3. The findings concerning the variance in “progress” between the skull and legs, are not what I would expect, but what one might expect from a charlatan. The only thing going for the article was its reported publication in the journal Nature. Overall, I’m skeptical.
Good stance to work from. In matters like these I lean more toward what might loosely be described as agnostic, I look at new finding like this, say, "Wow, that's interesting" and then wait for the conclusions of others in the field. Time has proven to be a remarkably effective vetting process.
I like to think our scientific processes has been refined enough that we shouldn't have to wait over forty years for frauds such as piltdown to be be discredited.