It is quite natural that when two related species that compete for the same resources but cannot or will not reproduce together are put into proximity, one will be driven to extinction.
And yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; so the fact that we have no evidence of Neanderthals using thrown spears is not evidence that Neanderthals didn't use thrown spears.
But if a body from 1811 was dug up and had arrows in it you might suggest it was likely that he was shot by Native Americans.
And “evidence suggests” is not a sweeping generalization but carefully couched language that fits the data.
Actually, I don’t think “evidence suggests” is terribly accurate. A speculative deduction suggests this conclusion.
But even the degree of caution contained in “evidence suggests” will be forgotten as this speculative theory makes its way into textbooks, as I guarantee it will.
Young skulls full of mush will read in their world history textbooks about how the early humans killed off the Neanderthals because they had acquired the spear-throwing ability and the Neanderthals had not. It will become simple fact reported in textbooks, I guarantee it.
And the same people that spout this as solid fact will get all up in arms about even the slightest claims about religious belief in textbooks, religious beliefs that mesh well with empirical observation of how people have lived and thought over many centuries (e.g., the Ten Commandments or an ordered universe suggesting an Orderer).
Not to mention the Black Legend about religion causing all wars or the evil Christians compared to the noble Muslims over the centuries that are taken as fact in textbooks when plenty of evidence suggests otherwise. There, I mentioned it.
“The speculation that humans drove neanderthals extinct is an attractive one, despite the scant amounts of evidence.”
Attractive to whom? Some people are attracted to the speculation that Marilyn Monroe was murdered by RFK or that Zero was born in Kenya. There’s evidence for both of these, of differing levels of probative force.
That humans drove Neantherthals to extinction is speculation. I don’t mind it being reported as speculation. But the problem is that when scientists speculate (create theories, explanatory models based on data) they are automatically granted a kind of authority that they do not always deserve.
If scientists would just police their own neighborhood and not claim “science” for near total speculation but only for theories or explanatory models well-tested and verified by sufficient evidence, I’d be happy. People see “scientist” and they blindly give credence, far more blindly than the supposed stoooooooppppiiiiidddd peasants of the past gave credence to Christianity. Some “science” is 99% speculation, some is $.0009 percent speculation but the practitioners of the former get a free ride on the practicing of the latter. And they know it and take advantage of it.