Check out the article coyoteboy, I found this on a darwinist website (Science mag is darwinist big time and wouldn't dare print something critical of your mythical god),
I have read the original article. That is different than reading the two sentence treatment of the article on a creationist website. Creationist sites do not tend to tell the truth about evolution and related subjects.
its also common sense that DNA breaks down after a limited time.
Sure, DNA breaks down, but not after any particular time. The preservation rates can vary greatly. I currently have a lab working at extracting a sample from bone about 4800 years old, and they are having a hard time. But another sample several hundred years older produced results on the first try.
If you had read the original article, not just the comment that the creationist website wanted you to read ("Moreover, the damaged state of ancient DNA makes the method used to amplify it--the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)--far more error prone") you might have learned something. They sequenced the mtDNA in two different labs (Munich, Germany and Penn State) and got the exact same results. Those results were statistically outside of the modern human range.
btw, why does Neanderthal have a bigger brain cavity then modern humans if they were just monkeys (and monkeys have a smaller brain cavity in case you didn't know)
Monkeys? Neanderthal has the same relation to monkeys as we do--monkeys and apes split about 25 million years ago, and the ape line led to both humans and Neanderthals.
You really need to study up on this subject. Your comments suggest you are searching creationist websites for anything that may support the creationist case, but are really reading and understanding the materials.