The ability for science to be a self correcting mechanism isn't a weakness or a fault, that is the strength.
You seem to indicate that this is an unacceptable practice, yet I am sure the computer you are using isn't from the 1970s.
Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage.
KNM-ER 1470 is a hominin skull dating back 1.9 million years.
and his second series of tests showed it to be 1.6 m.y.o.
To add chaos to confusion, recent fission track studies of zircons from the KBS tuff indicate an age of 3 m.y.o.!
The skull was originally dated to be almost 3 million years old.
They trot out the same lame arguments time and again, and never listen to the actual replies.Instead of tossing out the theory, they determined that the dating methods that all agreed on the 2.6 million timeframe must all be in error because the fossil record wasn't in agreement with the dates.This has led some credence to some creationists arguments that the dating methods aren't accurate.To make matters even more confusing, Garnis Curtis at Berkeley has recently used potassium argon dating on the KBS tuff and come up with younger dates yet.His first series of tests showed it to be 1.8 m.y.o.