That is a lie. The most primitive people now alive are virtually indistinguishable from the contemporaries of the Neanderthals.
Without the barriers of geography, people have always shown a proclivity to interbreed.
There are distinct patterns to the way that people interbreed and the circumstances within which they interbreed and none of them are even remotely comparable to those of humans that would've been contemporaries of Neanderthals.
Ever wonder why jews come in so many different colors?
This almost made me swear. LOL! Well, I did swear to myself.. :)
The reason Jews come in so many different colors is because Jews were conquered by an urban civilization and then dispersed across an urban civilization.
There were no urban civilizations in the era of the Neanderthals.
And human intermixing (between tribes/clans) in pre-urban cultures is so rare and fleeting as to be all but nonexistent.
Hmm.. This was remarkably imprecise language on my part!
When I say virtually indistinguishable I mean in the context of what you'd said, that the most primitive people now alive are "modern" and display "modern" social norms. Since the social norms we're referring to are those related to breeding, what I am saying is that the most primitive people alive (the Sentinelese) are no more "modern" in the presumptive sense (e.g., post-Industrial) with regard to breeding norms than were the contemporaries of the Neanderthals.
There, that's more precise!
Unless you have some really old video or diaries, you don't know this. You know that their tools and means of attaining food are very similar if not the same. What you don't know is if their social norms are the same.
You're getting very hot that I'm attacking your ideas as untrue. I'm not. I'm saying that alough they may be true, there are so many variables and exceptions that it is a troubled argument not likely to win over people.
My point is that it is likely that the differences between humans and neanderthals were likely much greater and more severe than any diffences in living human communities. Therefore, why hang your hat on the weaker argument?
Indeed, it is far from known whether any interbreeding was even scientifically possible.
I'd be happy to agree with you if you are limiting your argument to, "Because humans show a tendancy to exclude outsiders, deformed, etc. from the breeding pool, it is possible that much more severe differences in ability, aesthetics, diet, etc. could completely eliminate interbreeding." But then I've already said that, although probably not in the posts directly to you.
And human intermixing (between tribes/clans) in pre-urban cultures is so rare and fleeting as to be all but nonexistent.
And what could the possible evidence for this be? You are saying that each band of hunter gatherers were genetically pure unto themselves, breaking up, but never coming together. This would even exclude rape and conquest of the women, which occurred a lot for sure later on. So why would urbanization bring this about if humans were incapable of breeding outside of their clans before? Mind you, you're making a "100% of the time" statement here, as it relates to Neanderthals.
Ahem...
American Indian tribes continually warred against their neighbors, took slaves and interbred with them. That's intermixing, of genes anyway.