If these 'people' were modern humans, they had to have been able to speak. Languages seem to be a much more accurate way to trace geopgaphic origins than by using a remarkably few skulls - or more accurately, skull fragments, ie: a few teeth and a piece of jawbone - to reconstruct an entire society of humanlike sub-species.
I think what this article is trying to avoid, and not very well, is that if someone is to believe in MRE they MUST, by definition, believe that not ALL humans are equally evolved. There is no practical way to avoid coming to the conclusion, that if we did not all spring from one evolutionary root, then some of us are more or less evolved than others.
The truth hurts, IF you are an evolutionist!
The truth hurts, IF you are an evolutionist!
The only problem is that non-evolutionists always confuse "more-evolved" with "better". Suppose it can be demonstrated through mtDNA that a typical Eskimo is more "evolved" than a typical Ethiopian. Only an idiot would conclude that an Eskimo is "better" than an Ethiopian when placed side-by-side, away from either one's natural habitat - say, in New Jersey. The Ethiopian is superior to the Eskimo in dealing with the dry North African climate, and the Eskimo is clearly superior in dealing with the Arctic chill.
Evolved/Better...don't confuse the two, and don't forget Environmental Context - in evolutionary circles, it's the main point.