Useing the coyote-wolf example again, it would be like if you identified 100 uniquely wolf genetic markers, and some coyote populations had none of them, but other coyote populations had 1 to 4% of them. That would indicated that the second coyote population had 1 to 4% wolf ancestry.
The same techniques could be used to estimate the amount of “Moor” ancestry in your average Sicilian, or the amount of Amerindian ancestry in your average American of European descent.
Again, you've restated the argument so that it at least makes sense logically. Whether that's what the original report intended to say, but for some reason just couldn't bring itself to say, is a matter of conjecture.
I suspect the confusion is deliberate, and possibly related to your additional argument that:
allmendream post 35: "Neanderthals are distinctly non human."
Let me suggest:
if we sort of "accidentally" confuse the very tiny subcategory of "unique genetic markers" -- of which apparently 1% to 4% are identical between Neanderthals & Euro-Asians but not Africans -- with the entire human genome of 3 billion nuclear DNA "base pairs" -- of which 99.5% are identical amongst humans and Neanderthals -- then we can with apparent reasonableness argue that "Neanderthals are distinctly non human."
In truth, the DNA evidence -- even leaving aside possible interbreeding -- suggests that Neanderthals are distinctly human -- 99.5%.
That 1% to 4% apparently refers only to the last one-half of one percent -- the same percentage by which humans differ from each other, and also from Neanderthals.
So let me put this as simply as possible: if humans can differ amongst ourselves by one-half of one percent and still all be "human," then why cannot Neanderthals differ from us by one-half of one percent and also still be "human"?
How is their one-half of one percent less "human" than ours?
Do you not agree? ;-)