Question:,There have been all these findings of skeletal remains scientists claim to have been prehistioric ancestors, like Lucy, the Neanderthals, etc. In truth, from the looks of these remains, I can’t say I believe it. I wanted to know, have any of these findings ever been proven wrong?,Answer:,I am not sure what you mean when you ask about “findings ever being proven wrong.” In what sense can a finding be proved wrong? In general, few of these findings have been proved wrong. I am not sure how they can be wrong. A skeletal remain is what it is. It cannot be “wrong,” but the interpretation can be inaccurate. There have been hoaxes in the past, such as the supposed Piltdown Man. These are an embarrassment to anthropologists, but they do not remove the legitimate evidence. There have been exaggerations by anthropologists who allow their biases to affect their interpretation of the data. However, the fact that a type of hominid which scientists call Neandertal existed is proved by hundreds of findings. Whether Neandertal are simply significantly different humans or a non or sub-human race is debatable. As for earlier hominid remains, there is significant evidence for modern human-like remains all the way back to about 200,000 years ago. With regard to earlier hominids such as australopithecus or afarensis, such primates had MUCH smaller brain sizes and walked semi-erect. These primates are apes. They are not human. I wish I could say with absolute certainty when fossils we can definitely say are “human” appeared, but I cannot. There have been a few hoaxes and some significantly exaggerated claims of human-like features or behaviors, but on balance the evidence you have been exposed to is probably mostly legitimate.,John Oakes, PhD