Ha...Not meant as a compliment but I will take it as such.
Alright then, by all means. Don't forget that the Gish Gallop involves a torrent of '
individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort"!
Evolutionists original portrayed Neandertals as stooped over dimwits and said they would have been incapable of breeding with modern humans... that they were an evolutionary dead end. Genetics proved that wrong. AncestralDNA.com tells me I am 9% Irish and 4% Neadertal... All people of European descent are descendants of Neandertals...We are them...they are us. BTW...I didn't do ancestral DNA but some of us are as much as 4% Neandertal ancestry...and within .1% or .2% identical DNA
Some evolutionists were reluctant (Some still are) to admit the humanity of Neandertals.*
http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199707/0203.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding
All I see in your cited references is the common theme that there is debate about the genetics and interbreeding of Neanderthals and humans. One of the problems is whether Neanderthals are a sub-species of Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis. The problem here is usually with the definition of the term species, which is often tested on whether the two types of homo can interbreed. Evidence could support interbreeding but it is not clear whether both the male neanderthal-female sapiens breeding and the female neanderthal-male sapiens breeding both produced fertile offspring. It is also possible that similarities in the two genomes are left over from common ancestry 500,000 or so years ago, before the emergence out of Africa.
While it is not true that Neanderthals are the ancestor species that gave rise to of modern humans, or vice-versa, you are welcome to open your embrace to H. neandethalensis / H. sapiens neandethalensis as fellow humans. I see no problem with that in principle. If you had decided to go the xenophobic route, and reject neanderthals as a foreign species, I could see the arguments for that, too. But to accuse 'evolutionists' (I'm going to assume you mean scientists) of some kind of dithering is to mock the basic process that has given you the data you use in your argument.
It happens quite often in paleontology actually. It even happened with Neandertals. Some Biblical creationists said very early on that Neanderals were fully human.* There is disagreement and creationists sometimes change their opinions on other fossil evidence where they are uncertain looking at a skull, or fragments, if it represents a human or a extinct ape.
But always the correction is made when a YEC perceives that a fossil doesn't seem to agree with Genesis, right? Evidence bends to suit dogma. That's the stated working principle of Answers in Genesis, and that's not science.
Stuart
