Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?
It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.
I find archaeological finds of humans with artifacts far more crucial than the fossil record of animals. Humans are the only species that create tools, music, art, and so on, and of course evolutionists have the timeline of when these creations and technology allegedly emerged. So when we find a bone flute dated to 43,000 years old, and they say we only started making music 30,000 years ago, this can't be ignored, though it can be disputed, and almost always is. I find the disputes of the Divje Babe Flute to be completely unfounded, but there it is.
The way scientists have treated the finds at Hueyatlaco is a complete joke. Humans weren't supposed to be in the Americas 250,000 years ago, and stone tool technology that is only 150,000 years old certainly aren't supposed to be there. I'll copy/paste from wikipedia, which is very pro-evolution.
The region, about 75 miles SE of Mexico City, was known for its abundance of animal fossils, and Irwin-Williams described Hueyatlaco as a "kill site" where animals were hunted and butchered.
Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances. During excavation, investigators discovered numerous stone tools. The tools ranged from relatively primitive implements at a smaller associated site, to more sophisticated items such as scrapers and double-edged blades uncovered at the main excavation site. The diversity of tools made from non-local materials suggested that the region had been used by multiple groups over a considerable period.
in 1969 Irwin-Williams cited statements of support from three prominent archeologists and anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the group's methodology.
In 1981, the journal Quaternary Research published a paper by Steen-McIntyre, Fryxell and Malde that defended an anomalously distant age of human habitation at Hueyatlaco.The paper reported the results of four sophisticated, independent tests: uranium-thorium dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and the studying of mineral weathering to determine the date of the artifacts. These tests, among other data, validated a date of 250,000ypb for the Hueyatlaco artifacts. They wrote:
The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr. old. We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma [...] In our view, the results reported here widen the window of time in which serious investigation of the age of Man in the New World would be warranted. We continue to cast a critical eye on all the data, including our own.
Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.
In 1973, Virginia Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatlaco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's streambed hypothesis.
Only one scientist maintained the accuracy of the dates, even though there is zero evidence to contradict the them. Her career, of course, is ruined.
No good, no good at all. Even the internet armchair atheist scientists that get their rocks off "debunking" anything that doesn't agree with the theory are at a complete loss. All they say is "There is no reason to believe the dates. They must have been contaminated. They don't agree with all the other finds." Duh. This is a new find. It isn't supposed to automatically be consistent with other finds. This is how knowledge advances. Scientists are supposed to be in the pursuit of knowledge, not the censoring of it. Not the ignoring of it.
And there are so many other finds that cast considerable doubt on the development of man through the evolutionary lens. I would absolutely love to discuss them. I feel like the "Old Earth vs New Earth" board may be an appropriate place for that, but I don't know if Darwinists chime in there much, and I'm interested in their refutations and theories toward archaeological "anomalies."