Still craving that "lip Service" you used to
beat out of your mommy...

You've now posted this... well... i don't know
how many times but it's been a lot, and
you've never once explained how this fits
your up to 4% figure for Neanderthal DNA
and your 6% figure for Denisovan DNA...

They're all your cites -- YOUR cites -- so
shouldn't you make an attempt at explaining
your contradiction?

Then there's the fact that, even accepting your
cherry picked low cite, 2% is enormous. You
yourself said elsewhere that we're only off
from Chimps by 5%. So, clearly (to none
mental cases), even what looks like a small
change in DNA is big, *Big* news...

Your mother wishes you'd stop. Why
do you hurt her like this?

Curse you for missing it.

We know for a fact that this isn't true. You posted
several cites supporting multi regionalism, you
cited up to 4% Neanderthal DNA in today's population,
with up to 6% "Denisovan." Then I posted this link
to what has to be Homo erectus DNA:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/2/189.abstract

And the map on this page shows that the dates
are all wrong, that so-called "moderns" were
in Asia and the middle east before they even
left Africa:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

And, quite frankly, going by anything but the
vertebrae from this 1.6 million year old "Turkana
Boy" you would have no choice but to conclude
he was a 100% modern human:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

Which means that if you found his leg or his
arm you idiots would be like, "Oh, look, another
fully anatomically modern human!"