The question was whether or not my claim that Neanderthal DNA is typically described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee was reasonable. I documented the claim and noted that anthropologists would not have anything meaningful to say on the subject and I might should have mentioned the fact that anthropology doesn’t have anything to do with DNA studies but I thought that was sort of obvious.
The question was whether or not my claim that Neanderthal DNA is typically described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee was reasonable.
Correct.
I documented the claim [..]
Correct. And then I, respectfully, pointed out that that claim was nevertheless grossly wrong. In other words: You are not at fault for quoting that source, but that source terribly distorted the truth.
[...] and noted that anthropologists would not have anything meaningful to say on the subject and I might should have mentioned the fact that anthropology doesn’t have anything to do with DNA studies but I thought that was sort of obvious.
No, it is neither obvious nor correct. Paleoanthropology is the study of our (extinct) near-human ancestors (genus Homo) and our relation to them. The degree of kinship can be inferred on the basis of 1) gross morphological/anatomical features (fossil studies), 2) behavioral/cultural similarities (artifacts like tools, cave wall artwork, burial sites, remains of campsites and shelters, etc.), and 3) genetic similarities (determined as long ago as the 1950s on the basis of serological studies, and, more recently - with the advent of precise tools to recover fossil DNA and identify genetic markers - through the direct comparison of our genomes).
Now, while it's true that a biochemist or geneticist trying to extract (from fossil remains) and reconstruct the DNA of Neanderthals or Denisovans and compare it with the DNA of modern humans will probably self-identify as a "biochemist" or "geneticist," there is still no denying that he is working in the field of Paleoanthropology. Indeed, many Paleoanthropologists may also have degrees in Genetics and vice-versa. There is, of necessity, a lot of overlap between the fields. And a university degree in Physical Anthropology would be unthinkable, nowadays, which didn't include a lot of course work in genetics.
So, of course, an Anthropologist who has devoted his life only to studying, e.g., primitive metallurgical technologies and to retracing prehistoric trade routes based on the use of similar smelting/casting technologies, similar artistic styles, or the use of metal ores containing the same proportion of isotopes is NOT a metallurgist, nor an artist, nor an engineer, but he has undoubtedly acquired a great deal of competency in those related fields and could say more about them as they related to primitive metal trinkets and tools than, say, a modern industrial metallurgist.
In short: Any Paleoanthropologist who makes claims or publishes papers about our genetic relationship to other members of the genus Homo (or to non-human hominids, like the members of the genus Pan - i.e., Chimpanzees) will undoubtedly either have, himself, acquired great competency in the field of genetics or have conferred at length with geneticists.
Finally, I challenge you to find a single claim made in the past 50 years by a reputable Physical Anthropologist (not by a writer for a boulevard paper) that Neanderthals are genetically "about halfway" between modern humans and Chimpanzees.
Regards,