Is it that hard to tell the difference without dates?
"Of those links, however, this ARN page lists it as an H. sapiens specimen."
I thought all Neanderthals had been reclassified to Homo Sapiens Neanderthal?
"Typically, you have to earn some trust before you can abuse it but there are historical exceptions. Two people named Clinton come to mind."
If I ever agreed that evidence for evolution existed, the Clintons and America's election of them would be it. Then again, I think that supports de-evolution more than evolution.
"Ask your butt why it thinks this is a question."
My butt said, "Evolution is a bunch of cr*p".
Could it be you just don't like the answers since about 1859?"
I don't like some of the conclusions and I'm doubtful of some of the observations. You know I have long been a critic of radiometric dating, so to see multiple researcher's prehistoric finds being re-dated into a creationist timeframe is sweet.
Are you following the conversation? I do not believe that any of the others were proposed as Neanderthals, as I have not heard of any 13,000-year-old, 18,000-year-old, etc. proposed Neanderthals in Germany or anywhere else. The latest date of which I had heard was a proposed hybrid, Lagar Velho in Portugal, 26,000 years old. The differences are supposed to be quite striking in adults, although the Lagar Velho case is a child, harder to tell. Some argue that it's just a chunky "modern."
I thought all Neanderthals had been reclassified to Homo Sapiens Neanderthal?
The trend is running against. Note that on the same linked page, neanderthals are listed as "H. neanderth" or simply "Neanderthal." Thus, any interpretation of the Hahnofersand find as a Neanderthal was less than universally accepted already. You and your pal Mikey-Mike could check a few things rather than creatively misunderstanding everything in sight.