The last paragraph you cite shows the problem of trying to shoehorn a pre-DNA concept - species - into a post-DNA world, which I alluded to in my post.
One of the things that interests me in the sociology of science - there is such a thing but I am not suggesting relativism - is the way religious prejudices prevent objective analysis of evidence. Galileo is a good example. The religious idea of human exclusivity has been very powerful - persuading psychologists to minimise chimpanzee and gorilla use of language, and constantly searching for structures in the brain which make humans unique. The fact is that tool making and even raft building long predated modern man.
Interbreeding between sapiens and neanderthalensis may have been rare and difficult but the evidence is that it happened, and that the popular idea of them as some kind of “ape-men” is utterly wrong. It was the suggestion in the original post that homo and neanderthal had very different DNA to which I was objecting.
